[KamperKen]

"But you just happen to know a large selection of standard creationist mantras yet appear blithely unaware of the equally stock mainstream science refutations"

And the science refutations are weak. BTW, my education is in physical science.

[VadeRetro]

You are pretending the counterarguments don't exist, rather than presenting the imagined weaknesses. If you know the refutations--and you would have to if you know they're "weak"--why not start there instead of disingenously waving the creationist talking points as if no one has ever seen them before? Most of us have been unconvinced by them for years.

[donh]

And the science refutations are weak.

No significant number of natural scientists agree with you. The vast majority of scientists, including physical scientists, when asked, will tell you that the best vetted, best supported by experiment and field study, most reliable theory in the natural sciences, at present, is evolutionary theory.

BTW, my education is in physical science.

...and so if follows, I presume, that you don't have a particularly educated opinion about the details of the arguments in favor of evolutionary theory.

[Thatcherite]

And the science refutations are weak.

Why don't you post here the ways in which the scientific refutions of your assorted stock creationist claims are weak. Rather than just starting with the stock claims as if the refutations don't exist. Then we can discuss whether you are right or misunderstanding something.

I smell fish.