Too stupid, even for the 'Answers in Genesis' Journal.

This is quite entertaining and if you often find yourself battling fools on the internet, it's could even come in useful. If even the dullards at AiG thinks your arguments are bullshit, then you've got to be wrong. 

Their webcomic makes their aims clear. 

It's clearly all about the science

Answers in Genesis is the 'Peer Review Journal' that sets out to prove, defend and proclaim creationism.  Now obviously, actual peer review journals work by being about a subject, but with no set aims for where the research they publish will take them. That way the scientists who publish within the journal compete amongst themselves, checking and improving, each others work despite having separate, and often contradictory, ideas about their subject. 

Brilliantly Answers in Genesis have decided what arguments for creationism are too stupid. Even for them. They recommend that creationists do not use the following:

• Darwin recanting on his deathbed.
• Moon-dust thickness proving a young moon.
• NASA's computers  'find'  Joshua's missing day whilst modelling the past.
• Wooly mammoths were flash frozen during the flood.
• The second law of thermodynamics began at the Fall.
• If we evolved from apes then apes shouldn't exist anymore.

And it goes on and on. Now if they are trying to raise the quality of their arguments, and weed out the flaws, then this is great news. They are attempting (poorly) the scientific method. They are still looking for data that supports a hypothesis rather than vice versa, but at least they are cutting out the data that is wrong right? They'll eventually exclude everything and give up right?

Well we can hope. But this little nugget implies that they are mearly trying to find the most successful arguments rather than the most truthful. 

• “There are no transitional forms.”

"Since there are candidates, even though they are highly dubious, it’s better to avoid possible comebacks by saying instead: “While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even a century and a half later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.”

An idea fans of memes understand well. So unfortunately It seems they don't really want to follow their own advice buried in the middle of the page:

"We must not try to read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint."

Housekeeping: Finishing a PhD is hard work, so I haven't had chance to write part 2 of my Scientology protest thing. But it is coming. Honest. They'll be a guide to how Scientologists will stalk you if you go to the next protest on March 15th.