Some editorial comment...
John writes:
I don't see the continents remaining intact under these stresses. It seems they would have been destroyed. Is this an argument from incredulity? Well, sort-of.
We've dismissed Creationist arguments from incredulity so many times that we may have come to believe they're automatically false, but they're only false when used inappropriately. If a Creationist begins a discussion with the statement, "I just can't believe that small changes over long time periods can account for molecule-to-man evolution," then this is a valid argument, and we answer with the evidence supporting evolution. But if after seeing the evidence the Creationist *still* says he just can't believe it, as opposed to offering contrary evidence, then it becomes an invalid argument from incredulity.
If someone were to say to you, "Here's a hammer, I bet you can't break this window," you would probably answer "I can't believe this window won't break when I hit it with this hammer." If the answer provides no evidence supporting the claim that the window cannot be broken, then the argument is not one of incredulity but simply common sense. However, if the answer is to point to the little label in the corner that announces the glass is bullet-proof and we were still to express doubt that the window could withstand a hammer blow, only then does it become an invalid argument from incredulity.
So it is perfectly valid to state "I can't believe you could push tera-tons of continent around like so many pinballs without destroying them" until some kind of evidence is provided. Certainly no effort has been spared pointing out the reasons why this seems impossible.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2