Talk:Essay:A Challenge to Creationists

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Re: If god did create the universe, then it would have to be physically possible for a sentient being to create universes, planets, living creatures, basically anything.

Physically possible? I think a far better explanation is that it was a supernatural event. Please go HERE. Conservative 17:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)


Your challenge echoes that of Kent Hovind, and is flawed for the same reasons. By the same logic, I could challenge you to prove that you're not a clever construct being controlled by hyper-intelligent slug aliens from a distant galaxy, and claim that if you can't prove it, the notion that you're a sentient being has no merit.

You're asking finite beings to explain the infinite. By definition, we cannot. If God exists, then we cannot explain Him or the mechanisms by which He works His wonders. If God does not exist, then we obviously cannot explain Him or the mechanisms by which He works His wonders.

Your challenge meets the same result regardless of whether God exists or does not exist; thus, it is not a useful challenge. --Benp 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

If God does not exist, then we obviously cannot explain Him or the mechanisms by which He works His wonders. It would probably be more appropriate to say "If god does not exist, then we had better give up trying to explain things that do not exist. Speaking personally, though, I think I'd be much more interested in Jack if I believed he WAS being controlled by a hyper-intelligent slug alien from a distant galaxy, if only to know how they circumvented the light speed barrier. -Drek


My challenge is nothing like Hovind's.

Hovind's was invalid because it required one to prove things outside the scope of evolution, not just evolution. Hovind's challenge therefore wasn't to prove evolution, it was to disprove creationism, which is by nature unfalsifiable.

physical or supernatural, creationism requires the actions of god to be POSSIBLE in some way. Extraordinary Claims need Extraordinary Evidence, as they say. I could claim that there exists a being that defies all laws known to man, but it would be just that: a claim. Until I proved it could be done.

In other words, in something can't be DISproven, you must PROVE it. --JackSmith 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Given that the universe exists, it is entirely logical and rational to say that it is possible for a universe to be created. Given that the universe demonstrates observed properties which fall outside the scope of human explanation, it is entirely logical and rational to say that the universe was created by methods beyond human understanding. Given that sentient beings are observably capable of creation on a limited scale, it is reasonable to assume that they are capable of creation on a larger scale than has yet been observed.
Which aspect of "The universe could have been created by a sentient being" do you consider to be impossible? --Benp 18:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Not much of a challenge

What kind of challenge is that? The challenger doesn't even understand the nature of God.

Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." Mark 10:27

Now Jesus was talking about salvation, especially in the context of one who clings to "the good life" here on Earth. But it goes double and triple and tenfold and a thousandfold for an event as all-encompassing as creation.

Here's the real challenge: if God did not create everything, then explain to me how it was physically possible for things to "just happen," and in a way that does not multiply guesses. It doesn't even have to be an odds-on favorite; odds less than nineteen to one against would be fine. The trouble is that the odds against things "just happening" are nothing short of astronomical, and somethings simply could not have "just happened" in any amount of time, and other things couldn't have happened because they did not have that much time.--TerryHTalk 09:47, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Response: If god DID create everything, how did HE come to be? that's even LESS likely than this world developing on its own. And he couldn't have always been there. Time cannot extend infinitely backwards, because if it did, then an eternity would have passed by now, which defies the rule of "eternity". --JackSmith 10:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

P.S: did you just link the word Astronomical to the astronomy article? They mean completely different things. --JackSmith 10:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Rebuttal: God needed no cause for Himself. He is the First Cause, and the Last.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." Revelation 1:8

God made time. So, according to His nature, He is outside of time.

And—funny that you should talk about time being incapable of flowing infinitely backwards. That's a relatively new concept, did you know that? Sir Charles Lyell, the inventor of uniformitarianism, held as one of his central precepts that the Earth has always been around, and forever. That premise became untenable when the radiometrists couldn't come up with any number higher than 4.6 billion years for the "ages" of the oldest rocks.

And I did not link to astronomy by accident. I meant to do that. Because modern astronomy is providing observations that, properly understood, are tearing uniformitarianism, and all the deep time baggage that goes with it, to tatters. Think about it—virtually every successful space mission, by NASA, or the ESA, or the old Soviet space agency, has turned up observations that create serious problems for the whole deep time concept, the nebula hypothesis, the Big Bang, and everything else. Check out the articles on the planets and on many of the moons, and you'll see.--TerryHTalk 11:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Okay, God did not make time, otherwise the Bible line: "First there was nothing" would make absolutely no sense. First? Without time, chronological order would be renered meaningless. How could anything happen without time? If this concept you're arguing is self evident to you, I have no hope for you. This is precisely my point: This concept cannot be accepted as a given, it's too absurd to find obvious. Furthermore, all "refutations" on this page assume I'm already wrong, thus circular logic. And if God exists, he's not all powerful. Can he make a rock that he himself cannot lift? --JackSmith 11:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I think you will find that "In the beginning" pretty much would equate to the start of time as we can know it. Also, the ability of humans to make nonsensical statements, and then place God in them, does not define God. "Can God make a color that is bluer than blue?" "Can God make 2+2 =4 and make 2+2 =5?" Learn together 18:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Logically invald

First, you get points for originality. I've not seen this particular challenge made before, that I can recall.

However, your challenge, or at least the "punchline", is logically invalid. That is, it is not valid to conclude that because something cannot be explained, it isn't true.

Further, you haven't explained why the onus is on creationists to show how this is possible rather than on you to show that it's not possible, or that a naturalistic alternative is possible or even more reasonable. The way I see it, it is more reasonable to accept that a being who is supposed to be capable of creating everything did so, than to suppose that everything came into being from nothing for no reason. The former is consistent with what we do know that for things to come into existence, there needs to be a cause, whereas the idea that everything began from nothing for no reason is inconsistent with this.

Philip J. Rayment 09:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

A correct understanding of the Universe and Supernatural realm

I don't know if this will be helpful or not JackSmith, but I think what is needed to correctly understand how God could do this, is this...

  1. Universe: The way Christians define this is all material things (all matter and energy, and possibly time although there is debate). Basically though, that means all things outside of (independent of) the Universe are not matter and not energy, they are not made of physical material. They are not bound by scientific laws, because they are not within the realm of nature which has those laws. Scientific laws, by the way, don't equate to logic. You could have different laws in a different realm of existence and still have the same basic logical principles. Therefore just because God is supernatural does not make him illogical.
  2. Supernatural: The word "super" obviously means great, like Superman. He isn't a regular man, he is a SUPER man. Similar to that but slightly different, when we say God is supernatural, we are saying that he exists independent of and logically prior to the Universe (I hesitate to say chronologically prior because of debate on whether God exists in time or not. However, he can certainly act within the realm of time.)

--Ymmotrojam 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

You asked how it was physically possible, my response is "It's not physically possible." It is, however, supernaturally possible as per the definitions I gave. The laws of science do not permit such a natural or material being to be able to create matter or energy, but they say nothing about whether a Being that is above natural things could create things that are natural. In more plain language, God created science (in the sense of the laws, and the physical matter and energy). --Ymmotrojam 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

"God made time."

That's a tricky statement, because you could rightly ask, "at what time did he make it?" Now we don't fully understand God obviously, and the bible doesn't tell us everything there is to know about an infinite being, but some have posited this. That God entered time at the point he created it. Personally, JackSmith, I don't think any of us here at Conservapedia have the brains to answer your questions fully. I would recommend the following articles and lectures by Dr. William Lane Craig, because he has studied the ideas of God and time in much more depth. Here at Conservapedia (and this isn't an insult), you will be pooling our ignorance :-).

--Ymmotrojam 10:33, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

If God made time, how is it valid to ask "at what time did he make it?". The question presupposes that God exists in time, which He could not do if He made it. Philip J. Rayment 07:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Very well, I will explain why the burden of proof is on creationism.

Here's a little story...

Three men walk up to a wise king, each believing to have found the origin of life.

One proposes that a large dragon formed the planets from cooled magma, formed the sun with his fire breath, and left parasitic creatures on its skin to inhabit the earth and develop into modern beings.

The second man proposes that a fairy formed the world and all living things with her magic.

The third proposes that the world was created by an almighty and loving god.

They ask the King to tell them which he thinks is true.

The wise king ponders, considering each of these possibilities.

"This is very difficult..." the king said, "As I cannot find any way to disprove any of your ideas."

The first man said with joy: "If I cannot be proven wrong, I must be right!"

The king stopped him: "It means nothing of the sort, young man," he said, "for although I cannot confidently say that any of your ideas are wrong, if each theory has a lone creator, clearly they cannot ALL be true."

The third inquires: "But your majesty! If none of them can be disproven, how do we know which one is right?"

The King smiled, and said: "Simple. If only one can be right, the only way to prove any of them to be false is to show that one is true. Until then, we have no way at all to decide which one is right."

So you see the point? No matter your opinion, until you find evidence of your claims, it's no more or less valid than the hundreds of other creation stories on earth. --JackSmith 11:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Then Karl Popper turned to the King and said "Your majesty, you have it the wrong way round. There is no proof of anything. The only way to, temporarily, corroborate one hypothesis is to show all available alternatives to be 'false. --Toffeeman 07:58, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
There is a fundamental flaw in your argument. The first two examples of a dragon or a fairy are not supernatural beings. God is a supernatural being. --Ymmotrojam 11:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
I didn't fully explain myself. What I mean is that the laws of science demand a being that is outside of nature to create nature (as said above, matter and energy cannot create themselves). For a proper example to be constructed, it must consist of all supernatural entities. --Ymmotrojam 12:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Okay, fair enough, but outside of the story, where the significance of the story lies, there ARE hundreds of stories involving supernatural beings and ONLY those supernatural beings. The point is, since they're all unfalsifiable, they can't be proven false. But since none of the stories can accomodate the others, they can't all be true. So since unfalsifiability is a common trait with all creation stories, you need more. You need to PROVE it to be true. --JackSmith 12:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
I assume that by falsifiable, you are referring to the five senses. In other words, unless one can taste, feel, smell, see, or otherwise observe with the five senses, then it cannot be true. Is that correct? If that is what you are saying, we cannot prove the concepts of truth, beauty, love, friendship, or even the concept of knowledge itself. Those concepts are not observable by the five sense, and therefore not falsifiable if I understand you correctly. And yet we recognize them to be real things. --Ymmotrojam 12:25, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Wow. So much obfuscation. I want a straight answer to this question: "True or false? If none of the creation stories on earth can be disproven, and at most one can be true, you need evidence to SUPPORT the the truth of yours, otherwise yours is no more or less valid than the other creation stories."
Here's one criteria that I look at for thinking through the religions. Since it's not possible for the universe to be caused by a natural being, (1) If the religion has any hope, it must be a supernatural being. That right there gets rid of a ton of "religions" where God is just an exalted man (like mormonism), or animistic religions where God is an animal or a tree, or pantheistic religions where God is one with all material things. --Ymmotrojam 12:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Here's the practical thing to get out of this then. What I'm saying is that this criteria really lessens the amount of work you need to do. You now don't have to even investigate some religions simply on the basis that they don't have a supernatural deity. I realize I haven't made the case for Christianity, but I'm making the case for God. Don't worry, I'm tracking with you :-) --Ymmotrojam 13:17, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
True or false, which is it?
  1. "If none of the creation stories on earth can be disproven". (1) You limited it to creation stories. We've got to take more into account than simply each particular story of creation. (2) If one religion can be proven, or at least shown most probable (perhaps telling the future and never getting it wrong), then that would at least send great doubt upon the others if not prove them wrong. So I disagree with the statement that says they cannot be disproven. You acknowledge yourself that "at most one can be true." Therefore, if only a max of one can be true, the others are false, and can be disproven or discredited. I've already disproven some simply by that "supernatural criteria" I gave above.
  2. "you need evidence to SUPPORT the the truth of yours, otherwise yours is no more or less valid than the other creation stories." True! Ding, ding, ding!! You should win a prize :-). What qualifies as evidence though, in your mind? Would telling the future and never getting it wrong qualify as evidence for the bible? Even if you disagree with the bible, would you be able to at least admit, "If that were true, that is good evidence!" If that can at least come out of your lips, then we are going somewhere. :-)
--Ymmotrojam 13:33, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Furthermore, your comparison to truth and beauty etc. is a flawed analogy. These are constructs of the mind. Take for instance beauty. Even the most hideous of creatures are attracted to eachother. And it's interesting that you compare the existence of god to constructs of the human mind. :) --JackSmith 12:36, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
If there is a God who is by definition perfect, he is then perfectly beautiful. Taking that he is perfectly beautiful, and being the first cause, he is then the standard for what beauty should be. Anything that is not beautiful in his eyes does not have true beauty. So yes, there is a true and a false kind of beauty. --Ymmotrojam 12:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

No, that is NOT necessarily so. You just said at the beginning "if there is a god". This is NOT proven, so your conclusion is in no position to be stated as fact.

See, this is exactly why I don't believe in God. It's too contradictory that an all powerful and loving God would be such a pompous and arrogant jerk, telling people "you're irredeemably ugly. It's not my opinion, it's fact." You say god is perfect, that he decides what's right and what's wrong, but this just boils down to might makes right. You say he's the ultimate might, so therefore he's the ultimate right.

Christianity to me with the whole "be good or go to hell" thing looks like an elaborate scare tactic, like the boogeyman story that parents used to tell their children to keep them in line, while severely messing them up in the process. You tell people to belive in what's "right" and not to do what's "wrong", and convince the gullible that an all powerful and loving god will condemn you to hell for an eternity if you so much as set a toe out of line. It's deceitful. If God exists, and he truly hated Homosexuals, why does he condemn them instead of just getting rid of gay thoughts? If he can do anything, why did he have to DROWN the world to start over? Why couldn't he just purify them?

I on the other hand, am an Atheist. I have no god governing me. And somehow, even without this COMPLETELY NECESSARY threat hanging over my head, I do not rape children, or eat kittens, or even steal. I may not be perfect, but to suggest that Atheists are immoral because they have no god is the most cynical and insulting statement one can possibly say about the human race.

I understand this isn't quite what you said, but it eventually led to it, so while I do not necessarily direct this to you, Ymmtrojam, I certainly direct it at a few of the members of this site. Thanks, and Lightspeed.--JackSmith 14:11, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

  • clap* *clap* *clap* -Drek
Thank you for your honesty. Here's some more food for thought. (By the way I'm in no way against you. I love dialoguing about this kind of thing. After all these questions trouble me at times as well, because this is something that is life or death to me. I don't take these issues lightly. Just so you know I actually care, and it's not just talk...)
  1. I know some Christians haven't really been good examples of what a Christian is supposed to be, but I would encourage you not to judge Jesus on his hypocritical followers (I'm not directing this to anyone here in particular, just in general). After all Christians can sin, have bad attitudes, etc! Oh the horror! :-)
  2. "No, that is NOT necessarily so. You just said at the beginning 'if there is a god'. This is NOT proven, so your conclusion is in no position to be stated as fact." You're absolutely right that I said "if," and I intended to. I am trying to see if you are open minded. There is no point in debating with someone if he is not open minded. I am also trying to be completely honest in my dealings with you.
  3. "It's too contradictory that an all powerful and loving God would be such a pompous and arrogant jerk, telling people "you're irredeemably ugly. It's not my opinion, it's fact." (1) How contradictory is "too contradictory" :-)? It seems by saying "too", you mean that you just don't like it, but it doesn't invalidate it. (2) The Bible actually comes out and tells us that even the good things are not beautiful in God's eyes. "For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away" (Isaiah 64:6). Actually, it is a loving act that God tells us that we are not as good as we think we are. Imagine a doctor telling a cancer patient who is about to die, that he really isn't doing that bad!
  4. "be good or go to hell." I agree, that would be a "scare tactic," if that were the message of Christianity. In fact that is the very opposite of the Christian message. In fact, we say that one cannot be good to go to Heaven, because we are all sinners who are incapable of being good enough. If getting to Heaven depended on good deeds, how would you ever know if you had done enough? You would never know if you needed to go to church one more time, or walk one more old lady across the road! But in fact we are saved by the unmerited favor (grace) of God. That means that when we trust in Jesus Christ, God saves us on the merits of what Christ did in dieing in our place... not on our merits. "For by grace we are saved through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).
  5. "I may not be perfect." Now this last paragraph I know you weren't directing at me. But that phrase, "may not be perfect," that is really the whole point of Christianity. It doesn't matter whether we do those horrible deeds of raping, killing, etc, God cares about our hearts as well. There's that commandment about not committing adultery... well guess what, I've never done that. But Jesus said that even if we look with lust after a woman, we have committed adultery with her in our heart. See, God cares about perfection even in our minds and hearts (Because he is perfect and has to judge rebellion against him), and by your confession, you are not perfect (at least "may" not be). See, this makes the entire world, yes, even every single Christian guilty before God. No one escapes. That is why we all deserve hell, and that is why every one of us needs God to intervene on our behalf (and that is where Jesus, being God in the flesh, comes on the scene).
--Ymmotrojam 14:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
A point worth considering:
Jack, you keep insisting that those who believe what the Bible teaches about God need to prove his existence. However, if they are correct, then proof is impossible. Here's why:
  1. God commanded His followers to have faith.
  2. Faith is, by definition, belief in the absence of proof.
  3. Proof negates faith. If something is proven, it is no longer a matter of faith.
  4. Therefore, if God exists, and if He truly wants His children to have faith, then He will not allow Himself to be unequivocably proven.
--Benp 17:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Benp, I would respectfully disagree with you. Rather faith is by definition, a response to the evidence you have. It does not mean you have every detail, but you do have something. Even Abraham, who God called to leave his homeland and go to the land of Canaan was relying on some evidence (God had talked to him). Now it's one's own choice to respond to the evidence (God's word, the witness of the conscience, the witness of the Holy Spirit, etc), but faith is not blind and without proofs at all. --Ymmotrojam 17:32, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Noted, Ymmotrojam...but there's a difference between evidence and proof, just as there's a difference between faith and blind faith. Certainly, there's evidence of God's existence; however, there's not proof. If the existence of God could be proven, these debates wouldn't happen.
Nor do I think that it's particularly prudent to attempt to prove His existence; while He offered proof to one doubting Thomas, that one was one of His Disciples. --Benp 17:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
I agree that there's a difference between evidence and proof, but I disagree, in a qualified way, that there's no proof of God's existence. See my discussion of evidence and proof in my essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia for more.
And all Christians are Christ's disciples, so the example of Thomas, if anything, proves the opposite of what you make of it. But again, it gets back to evidence vs. proof. You should understand what I mean after reading that essay.
Philip J. Rayment 07:37, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Your "little story" to demonstrate why the burden of proof is on the creationists does no such thing. That is, it fails to show why the burden of proof is on any particular one of those stories. In fact, you yourself finished the story with "until you find evidence of your claims, it's no more or less valid than the hundreds of other creation stories on earth". And that's the point (ignoring what Ymmotrojam said about there being evidence for God; I'll get back to that): if they are all equally valid or invalid, why does a particular one have the burden of proof on it? That is, why do creationists rather than evolutionists have the burden of proof? Your "little story" totally failed to demonstrate that.

But of course we can take it further, as Ymmotrojam has done, and point out that the creation idea actually makes more sense than the others. That is, proposing that dragons, creatures that are supposed to be air-breathing terrestrial creatures, could form planets, is nonsense, as it contradicts what we do know (or believe). But proposing that a supernatural being could form planets is not nonsense, unless you know or believe that such a being does not exist or is not capable of that. But you don't know that (and if you believe that, you do so for ideological reasons). Further, as Ymmotrojam pointed out, the only logical explanation for the natural world is a supernatural one (I disagree with what he seemed to be saying that "super" means "great". In this context, it is from the Latin, meaning "above, over, beyond"[1]).

Rather, the burden of proof is on those that propose things that are against (not just beyond) observation, such as the currently-popular theory that the universe simply popped into existence from nothing for no reason.

Philip J. Rayment 07:30, 18 June 2008 (EDT)


This is just silly. The vast majority of creationists are not like PJR: they do not have even the skein of science over it. While I think he is wrong and so are the "creation scientists" who go through their elaborate contortions, they are a step up from the average. The average creationist believes God created the world, and that is that. Nothing more to it. If there is any proof otherwise, they believe he created it and so it is moot. This is why I am a Last Thursdayist, since I think the universe was created last Thursday, somewhere around three in the afternoon. It's also why this challenge is pointless. And even if it wasn't, it is irrational and poorly phrased. Knock it off and quit being a Hitchens, JackSmith.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 14:27, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Reply from MHayes

I would reply thusly. 1) Your very statement is a loaded question making the assumption that such a being could not exist, therefore you will not entertain any information that such a being *does* exist. This is by its face, a logical infalacy based on arbitrary presumptions.

2) Scientists posit that at some time, long ago, from some vague undefined "thing", the universe as we know it exploded outward and created on its own, planets, living creatures, and the universe itself. How much more preposterous a thought is that, that everything just happens without even larger power adding to it.

3) The God I believe in is all powerful. It exists because it does. It exists and always has existed. For me, it exists and i have ultimate faith that it exists, I do not propose to have science prove it exists. I have not asked that of science. But I have said to science that science must keep the possibility of a god open, if they are truly looking at all possible sources for how the universe came into existence. Personally, I respect when science says "we cannot look into what God might have done" because God is by His very nature, untestable, unknowable (as fact, not in the heart and soul) and unbouded by things that science must be bound by.

4) The limits of your mind to think that nothing can exist as it always has, is actually something of a weakness for you, who clearly believe in Science, for they posit that the Universe has always existed, at least once Time exists.

I personally (and I speak for no other Christian but myself) do not worry about how science grapples with what I know as Truth. But I do care that schools are allowed to say "where does God fit into your secular world". I trust science. But I know that science is limited by the very world God Himself designed, a world that has rules and boundaries - but rules and boundaries which do not apply to Him and Him alone. Science tries to uncover what He designed, and see how it worked, and even gain clues to how He created the universe. But a circular question of "how can god exist" is simply turned around to "how can the universe exist without god". In both instances, ultimately the only thing any of us can have is our Faith. Michelle--MHayes 13:15, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Aaah! You've got me siding with the Creationists!

A: If God created the universe it would have to be possible for Him to do it: yes, obviously.


B: If “A” then we could explain “A”: no, absolute ****. I cannot “explain” homosexuality, it still exists.

C: If Creationism cannot explain how it was possible then Creationism is worthless (untrue). This is akin to Creationist straw man arguments: find something that Evolutionism can’t explain or hasn’t nailed down yet and say “Aha! It’s obvious junk!”. It’s nothing of the sort.

Now if X is true, then X is true. “X is true because of Y” may be false, but “X” is still true. I can add any statement I like to “X” and I don’t negate it. Try it:

  1. America has 50 States because Everton is not the greatest team in the world
  2. America has 50 States because God made the world in six 24-hour days
  3. America has 50 States because God did not make the world in six 24-hour days
  4. America has 50 States because Flying Spaghetti Monster is made of potatoes
  5. America has 50 States because flibble

So the truth of “God created the world” is independent of any other statement that we may conjoin to it.

D. It might not make it false, but it makes it worthless as a theory. This differs from the Creationist “how do you explain X then” argument only in its, apparent, sophistication in distinguishing truth from utility. The knowledge of X is not rendered worthless by not knowing the possibility of X. Until recently no-body knew how it was possible for yeast to create beer. They just knew that it did. And that knowledge was not worthless (as I intend proving later today!)--Toffeeman 07:39, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

What's so bad about siding with the creationists? That puts you on the side of many famous scientific pioneers. Philip J. Rayment 09:19, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
You see further by standing on the shoulders of giants, not by standing alongside them. --Toffeeman 09:28, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
Heh, good comeback! Philip J. Rayment 10:48, 4 September 2008 (EDT)