Replies

...considerable amount of dispute over the aging of fossils (some fossils have been recently found with soft-tissue) how does that support your position?

There isn't considerable amount of dispute over aging of fossils. The only ones disputing it is people like yourself. And the soft-tissue issue means what? Go ahead and Carbon 14 date it if you think it is less than 5000 years old. What do you think you will find?

LiteKeeper, have you noticed I have been justifying my position quite well yet when I ask you a question you seem rather mute? I guess you don't really have any scientific proof to back up ID so... better for you to keep quite about it, right?

My original request was for you to present what you believe the Creationist position is, even if you disagree with it. You have not done that. So, your accusation that I have no scientific proof begs the question: many of us have repeatedly presented the results of scientific inquiry on this forum. And repeatedly all we are told is that it isn't scientific. Yet it is work done in science labs and in the field by tenured scientists with the appropriate PhDs. And yet it is rejected.

You tell us repeatedly that creation science is not truly science becuse it can be falsified - and yet we are repeatedly told that it is all false.

So, I am just curious to know what you think the so-called evidence is that we have presented that is false, even though it can't be falsified.

I have never seen an evolutionist on this forum take what evidence has been presented by us and deal directly with our assertions. As I said above, you simply dismiss it out of hand. That amounts to neither good debate, nor scientific inquiry.

BTW - not a single creationist has ever said that it is sufficient to say, "God did it, end of story." That is absurd and totally false.