[The Blitherer]

I wonder if your studies have encompassed visiting any university libraries. Visit one, and you will find literally tens of thousands of volumes and articles of data, experiments etc concerning evolution across numerous scientific disciplines.

I have. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, scientific journals and textbooks do not allow arguments for Creationism to be published, so the debate is rather one-sided. Have you researched the data, experiments and non-mainstream articles concerning Creationism?

[Dimensio]

Unfortunately, as I said earlier, scientific journals and textbooks do not allow arguments for Creationism to be published, so the debate is rather one-sided.

What scientific arguments exist for "Creationism" exist, and what do you mean by "Creationism"?

[Thatcherite]

I have. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, scientific journals and textbooks do not allow arguments for Creationism to be published, so the debate is rather one-sided.

In many years of reading creationist pamphlets, books, and websites I have seen precious few arguments *for* Creationism. Attacks *against* evolution aplenty of course ("Teach the controversy!" is the battlecry), invariably aimed straight at a non-scientific audience. But curiously, despite their wealth and vast constituency, the creationist organisations rarely seem to do any scientific research to back up their own ideas. Largely they just copy each other's phony arguments so on creationist websites and in their books you see the same bogus claims again and again. Creationists make no effort to address the scientific community with the only currency that counts: physical evidence in favour of their proposition.

You seem to be subscribing to some kind of conspiracy theory on the part of mainstream science to suppress well-founded evidence for creationism. The problem with this is that the number of conspirators would be vast, and the timespan is over a century, with no-one squealing. None of the conspirators benefit from the supposed conspiracy. On the contrary science is *avid* for new ideas because they give scientists a chance to make their name in a fresh area. Anyone who came forward with well-evidenced ideas that overturned a major established paradigm would generate a feeding-frenzy of scientists trying to get in on the act.

Have you researched the data, experiments and non-mainstream articles concerning Creationism?

Yes, sadly I've wasted a deal of time on this. I've never found one single well-evidenced argument for creationism, and neither have I found one single well-evidenced argument against evolution from those sources. It sounds as if you have found persuasive arguments. Perhaps you would like to post the very best one that you've found here, and I'll examine it. Here is your chance to persuade me.