Warp wrote:
> Kevin Wampler <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
>> It's also worth noting that in this particular case there isn't an 
>> accepted scientific (as in real scientific, not creation-scientific) 
>> explanation as to why trilobites went extinct either, so it's probably 
>> not the best example of a question to stump creationists on.
> 
>   Creationists, on the other hand, do have a stronger need to explain what
> killed them because they claim that it happened just some thousands of years
> ago. From the tens of thousands of different species of trilobites not even
> one survived to this day. What exactly killed them?
> 

The Great Flood killed the trilobites, clearly.  And under this view 
they'd be far from the only species that the flood killed, so it's not 
any less far fetched than anything else about that account of things.

By the way, these questions are getting beyond the point where I feel 
comfortable speculating how an actual young-earth creationist would 
respond, so if you're actually interested in knowing the answers you'll 
probably have to actually find a young-earth creationist who is also 
scientifically minded and ask them.

That said, I think for the vast majority of such creationists the 
primary support for their world-view is biblical rather than scientific. 
  Thus they would view the burden of proof as being on traditional 
science, since they already have a good account of how things went in 
the Bible.  If the scientists think they have evidence that the earth is 
old, then so much the worse for them -- the only answer must be that 
they've made some sort of judgmental or experimental error.

In this view traditional science is just suffering from a massive case 
of confirmation bias since it expects the earth to be old, for evolution 
to work etc.  And if you buy this, it shouldn't be any surprise that 
creation science has some rather large unanswered questions, since 
vastly fewer resources have been devoted to it.

Post a reply to this message