[LiteKeeper]

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.

[js1138]

My original request was for you to present what you believe the Creationist position is, even if you disagree with it.

It is rather difficult to quantify the creationist position, since it seems to have unique properties for each individual. There is no unifying statement of history equivalent to the biologist's assertion of common descent, or the geologist's estimate of the age of the earth.

[trashcanbred]

My original request was for you to present what you believe the Creationist position is, even if you disagree with it

Wrong. I started this conversation at post #3

I still don't understand how creationism is science. Do we teach that gravity is an intelligent hand pushing you down? Scientists don't normally give up and say "Well... I am not sure of the answer so it must be designed that way by some unknown (or known) intelligence". That doesn't seem to be science to me

Your response was Post #29 was:

Go study creationism before you make stupid remarks about it.

[From many - one.]

I'm up for your challenge.

Give me a piece of evidence for Creation without evolution.

[Coyoteman]

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.

Actually several posters address creationist claims in detail on occasion. Ichneuman comes to mind (so ping to him).

The problem is, your evidence goes back to the bible and to your belief in it and in its accuracy.

"Evolutionists" generally rely on materialistic data and interpretations (just the sort of thing the Discovery Institute rails about in their Wedge Document).

So in many of these threads when "evolutionists" challenge the scientific claims of creationists we see one of two results:

• First, the evolutionists are accused of being anti-god, anti-religion, atheists, nazis, or worse.

• Second, when backed into a corner with scientific data and theory, creationists often resort to 1) permutations of science that would fail in the fourth grade, 2) quoting the bible (Elsie comes to mind, so I am pinging him), 3) stubborn disbelief, or 4) artful dodging.

An alternate approach would be to say that your evidence is junk science at best, but most evolutionists are more polite than that. I have seen hundreds of threads where folks have posted a great deal of science, both text and links, only to have it ridiculed as spam, too long to read, nothing but links, nothing but text, not applicable, wrong, or some such. It is very common to have responses that are merely curt dismissals of well-reasoned and widely-accepted data and theory.

Hope this discussion helps.