In addition, people will gather ideas about creationism from people and sites that are just as ignorant and biased as the inquirers; they do not bother do do their homework. When they start spouting opinions and prejudicial conjecture, they humiliate themselves in front of creationists who do know how to reason.
A third problem is that many of them have a basic misunderstanding of science, and then spread it as truth (such as Bill Nye).
How about getting some basics settled?
You can basically read the rest of "Objections to Young Earth Creationism Often Reveal A Basic Misunderstanding of Science", here.Recently, I ran across a few comments about this image on a site called atheistthinktank.net. I really don’t expect fans on these sites, but I was surprised to see that their basic objections reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the debate.For example, take this comment by someone who sadly identifies themself as nogodsforme:"What the eff? I guess that guy doesn’t get that evolution is a result of the same scientific method that brought him his cell phone, car, clean water, flu shot, fridge and effing computer. Without science, he would live like people in the 1300′s.Evolution is only one part of science–a big part, but still only one part. And people who reject evolution still accept all the goodies that the scientific method gives them. We have to listen to religious stuff all the time, from nearly everyone we know (care to comment on last Thursday, anyone?) and we are the people with the facts on our side.As I have said quite frequently, if religious explanations worked, we wouldn't need science."Please note: Nearly every objection he makes is addressed within the first twenty slides [sometimes the first ten] of any decent creation presentation. Nor is this the meat of said presentation; I’m talking about the part where we lay the basic groundwork.