Author: Tom Scharle (email@example.com)
Title: FABNAQ - Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions
I have decided to post for your criticism a list of FABNAQ -
frequently asked but never answered questions -- for the extreme
creationists. I'm not really satisfied with it, but if I don't post
it now, I'll never get around to doing it. If you don't like any of
these questions please let me know. If you think that there should
be some additions, please let me know. And, of course, if anyone
*does* happen to have an answer ...
Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions
directed to scientific creationists, young-earth creationists
and their fellow travelers
1) Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other
version of creationism?
1a) If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were
not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect.
1b) Why are many Christians evolutionists?
1c) If you are a young-earth creationist: Why are many creationists
1d) If you are a young-life creationist: Why are many creationists
1e) Some people say that scientific creationism does a disservice to
Christianity by holding Christianity up to ridicule. How would you
answer that charge?
2) Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory?
(An adequate answer to this question will *not* be something which is a
problem for evolution, but is rather evidence *for* your theory.
Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your
theory to be false. Something which appears to support Lamarkian
evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than
gradualism is not enough. Also, the observation must be something which
can be checked by an independent observer.)
2a) Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?
3) Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory?
(The suggestion that major points are still under investigation will
only be accepted for theories that are relatively recent. Any
exposition which cannot be distinguished from solipsism or nihilism
will not be accepted.)
3a) Is there any statement of the scientific (or other) rules of
evidence which you accept? (If your answer is that some document is
your guide, explain the rules for interpreting the document, and your
rules for determining which document is your guide.)
4) Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating
methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals,
supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and
archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of
uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these
different methods give the *same* answers.)
4a) Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example,
the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.
5) Is there any feature of your theory which is subject to scientific
test? This is often stated: is creationism scientific in the sense that
it *could* be falsified? (After Karl Popper's criterion.) Another way
of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were
seen, would change your theory?
5a) Is there any observation which *has* changed your theory?
5b) Is your theory open to change, and if so, what criteria are there
for accepting change?
6) Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the
world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby
islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental
mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native
to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could
have arrived there, it is also of why *only* there.)
7) Is there a consistent reading of the Flood story of Genesis? How
many of each kind of clean animal went on the Ark? Present a calendar
of the events of the Flood from the birth of Noah through the birth of
Arpachshad (sometimes called Arphaxad, grandson of Noah), paying
special attention as to the day when Noah entered the Ark and how long
the Flood lasted. If you change the text of Genesis, give a reason for
the change other than the need to fit your beliefs.
7a) Why does the Flood story need to be consistent?
8) Where did all of the water come from and go to? (This is a very old
problem for the Flood story, and it may be the most frequently asked.
Quantitative answers are required.)
9) What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is
*not* a question about what they ate *on* the Ark.) In other words,
explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few
predators to many prey.
9a) Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals
resulted from the few on the Ark.
9b) Explain how a viable population was established for all of those
animal kinds from only a single pair of each.
9c) Discuss how symbiotic animals and parasites survived immediately
after the Flood.
10) Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of
land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed
calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as
vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls.
Remember to include all kinds of cattle. Explain the meaning of the
10a) Calculate the structural soundness and stability of the Ark, both
loaded and unloaded, on land and on the Flood waters.
10b) Explain the logistics of loading and unloading the Ark. Relate
this to the time available given in the answer to question (7) and to
the distribution referred to in questions (6) and (9).
10c) Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming
colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes
in one individual) animals.
11) Why do you feel that there must be a mechanistic, naturalistic or
materialist exposition of the wondrous events described in the Bible?
12) Why has God given us all the evidence for an earth more than 100,000
years old and for evolution and the intelligence to infer that? Why has
God given us a Bible with all of the evidence that it is not to be read
according to the norms of modern western historical and scientific