Murf wrote:

Hello everybody,

Last week I was wandering the shops during my office lunch break when
I was harassed by a religeous zealot selling magazines and CDS.

Feeling argumentative I asked him whether he was (1) a creationalist
and (2) a "Young Universe" creationalist - i.e. one who believes that
dinosaurs etc didnt exist and that the universe is about 4,500 years
old...

When he replied that, yes, he didnt believe in evolution, dinosaurs
(and women's rights I assume) I suggested that he was a little
misguided.

In evidence I said "how come you can see all of the stars at night
then? After all, many of them are clearly more than 4,500 light years
away?"

He told me that "astronomy is a souless science - they lie to you".

    An interesting theology where a science can have a soul. One would then ask what others things can have souls. Which sciences have souls and which do not?

Hmmph. He was obviously a twat, but is my line of arguemnt sound -
i.e. that you can see (or even detect) stars more than say 10,000
lightyears away a robust argument against a "young" view of
creation/existance?

    When he tells you light has slowed down, plug the required higher speed into e=mc^2 and use it to estimate the temperature of the temperature of the sun.

    There are dozens of obfuscations which require you to answer the issue.

    The proper approach is to demand evidence of their claims. They are the ones making them.

    When they invoke the bible as "evidence" requirement them to support it over other religious writings. When they dismiss other writings as the work of the devil ask where that is written in the bible -- and if not there ask who made it up and why he believes the mere mortal who invented it.

    Creationists really are easy to deal with if you treat it as the science they claim it is. Make them go from first principles to establish creation. Do not permit any discussion of evolution as that leads to the false choice of if evolution is wrong Genesis must be true.