[Coyoteman]

No room for any arguments against it.

No room from arguments based on belief.

Bring data and you will be listened to.

[mlc9852]

Any data not embracing evolution is automatically rejected so why bother? What happened to the scientist at the Smithsonian whose article was published?

[BillT]

You evolutionists date the rocks by the fossils found in them and date the fossils by what rocks they are found in.

What kind of data are you looking for.

Science is looking at what you find and analyzing it not pounding it into your world view.

[itsahoot]

Bring data and you will be listened to.

You mean like the phony Global Warming data, based entirely on computer modeling, which can in no way be proved.

[OneWingedShark]

Bring data and you will be listened to.

The problem is that there is no data. Scientific method is all about 'observable' and 'repeatable'. The evolution/creation clash is, in theory, about the origins of life. (In philosophy/theology it's about absolute morals, if there is a God, then there are morals, absolutely, which is why those that don't believe in morals are likelier to be evolutionists.)

But back to the theroy-clash. Nobody has ever been observed (by humans) to create life, that is make the nonliving into the living, and therefore both evolutionism and creationism are still just theories (or possible-explainations) about the origins of life.