This is an ironic example of creationistic thinking. Thinking that
seems to have 'Anything goes' paradigm in struggling against evolution.
This was published in newsgroup It was selected
to weekly humour lists of newsgroups.
I had written this because I was frustrated after reading books
D.Gish & Morris:'Creationists Answer Their Critics, ICR, (USA)'
and Finnish Creationist Pekka Reinikainen's book:'Unohdettu Genesis'
(Forgotten Genesis).
This is also good warning of how you cannot argue.

Little Creationist's Survive Kit.v.1.1 
How to survive in modern scientific world ? Here you can find answers. 

1. A.Prove that evolution is not science because it is not falsifiable.
     Quote Popper's words.
   B.Try to prove that evolution is false using any chance you can get.

2. A.Show that God is necessary to explain to world because Constants in 
     nature must be exact. Physicist have shown that even minor change in 
     gravitation speed of light etc. would have made life impossible
   B.Show that radiodating proof of "4.5 billion years old earth and stars"
     can wrong because we are not sure of physical constancy during time.
     Constants constancy haven't proved. So earth could be 6000 years old.

3. A.Prigonine's mathematical proof that material could organise itself
     though could work in paper. But not proven to work in nature so 
     we can ignore it. It has nothing to do with real evolution.
   B.Try to mathematize your findings so that it at least looks scientific
     and is on firm basis. So you can prove mathematically for example 
     that useful mutations cannot exist.

4. A.To Show that mutation can't create anything use computer analogy:
     Comp. programmes don't work better if you put some mistakes or
      mix the commands.
   B.Genetic Algorithms proves nothing about real evolution itself
     in Nature. And they are made by man.

5. A."Even these couple proof examples are enough to disprove evolution."
   B.Only few speciation instances are not enough to evolution. Only
     few cases are known and even them are disputable (by creationists).

6. A. Say "I can't see/imagine how this and this (eye) has evolved."
   B.If some anyway can, say: that's only speculation, which has not proven
     and won't ever be proven.

7. A.Evolution and history cannot be proven - they are not testable.
   B.History and arceology proves that Bible is true.

8. A. X and Y are distinctive groups. NO transitional fossils has ever been
    (..Whale with legs digged up 1994..)
   B.I. Well, NO proof that they are legs. They could be anything else for
      instance some help for reproduction.
      (..but if they are legs..)
     II. No transitional forms between X-Whale or Whale-Y is known. Ahaa!
         Now there are two gaps! So evolution is surely wrong theory.      
     III.This Whale is just distinctive line not contradiction with creation.
         I just became extinct.

9. A.You can safely use "cannot be proven" always because philosophy and 
     history of science shows that no absolute truths is known in science
     except maths.
   B.You can say ' this and this chemical/physical reason proves abiogenesis
      false. It is chemical and physical fact.'... Because audience
     doesn't know differences of facts and truths. So we can always say:
     C fact, proven, absolutely sure, scientific truth when C disproves
       evolution and
     E improbable,not proven, can't be proven or absurd when E supports 

10. Following holds
       if one scientist says 'X True', then it proves X true.
       if 1000 scientist say 'X not true' then it means nothing.
    as far as X="evolution is wrong" and "Creationism is OK."etc.

11     if one scientist says 'Y True', then it proves nothing but Y lunatic.
       if 1000 scientist say 'Y not true' then it proves Y not true.
   as far as Y="smoking is healthful" or anything we all have same opinion. 

12.    if one leading creationist says 'Z True', then it proves nothing but
        that creation is science because it accepts different opinions.
       if 1000 leading creationist say 'Z not true' then it proves Z false
       of course, because Science=Creation science. So 'Z not true' is
       scientific truth.
    as far as Z="earth can be 4500 million years old."  etc.
13. Use formula:     A [verb] B ,
     [verb]=guesses,thinks,believes,assumes,scruples, imagines,admits,
            confesses,doesn't know, hesitates, wavers, presumes, supposes,
            misleads or makes mistakes  ...whenever A is scientist who shows
            evidence for evolution.
     [verb]=shows,expresses, gives evidence, proves, demonstrates, 
            calculates, knows (for certain), verifies, disproves, 
            is sure of, is confident of, is convinced of, is assured of..
            ..whenever A is scientist who shows evidence against evolution.
14. You are in any case safe because even one good scientist's answer to 
    creationist always generates ten more questions to tease them with. 

This was written in Oct 1995 by K.A.Tikkanen.