Yes that is what I thought ! We will discuss what we believe amongst ourselves but not with people who do not agree with us.
I would like to know if there is a single shred of hard scientific evidence to support creation science? I know they base their theory on rejecting Darwinism and Evolution but is there a constant repeatable science based test that comes up with an age of 6,000 years for the universe or have dinosaur and human bones ever been found together?
I can't give any sources, as I haven't kept up with them but I do know from much reading and Dawkins videos that there is no hard evidence for ID or any creation nonsense. A good debate forum I use is OH YOUR GOD! on LiveJournal. They don't play nice but they are respectful to everyone.
I kept getting the argument that if life cannot form in a tin of beans or jar of peanut butter on the supermarket shelf then it cannot form through evolutionary theory.
I tried to explain the time involved and just how long 6 billion years is but they kept on with unless we can see life evolve it did not happen argument.
Can someone check my maths please I am hopeless at calculations. I worked out that if you had a car that moved one inch further round the equator every year, if it started moving 3 billion years ago moving at the imperceptibly slow rate of 1 inch a year it would have circled the globe almost 7 times.
Their reply was "But the universe is only 6,000 years old"
There is a perfect valid modern example proving natural selection and thus evolution theory: breeding. We can select certain attributes of an animal and breed it with another animal of the same type having other wanted attributes and then we keep breeding their offspring until we got the attributes we want. This is controlled natural selection (it is not natural obviously, since humans are controlling it instead of the environment) but the underlying logic is the same; namely that certain genes which carry a certain amount of wanted information (attributes) can be carried over to the next generation and eventually be refined until these attributes have reached a level where no more breeding on these attributes are needed. This is too, basically evolution theory simplified into a nutshell.
If "inorganic matter becoming a human under controlled laboratory conditions" is their idea of evolution, then it's easy to see why they reject it. What they describe is called abiogenesis, which is not evolution.
What I have found is that there is little point in debating a creationist as they are impervious to logic and reason. Their arguments are hopelessly circular and easily dead-ended with even the most basic assertion of reality. It becomes quickly apparent that you are dealing with a numbed brain that has surrendered itself totally and completely to a faith that is so intangeable and indefensible that it can only continue to exist by fulfilling its own prophecies.
I got involved in an "Is there a god?" discussion on a racing forum - of all places. There was one member in particular who turned out to be a creationist, but managed to remain civil in the exchange. I was always civil in my responses, and I learned so much from this one person about the mindset of a creationist. I reasoned away virtually every one of his talking points and even got him to admit that there were contradictions in the bible, but when cornered he always returned to his core tenet of the bible being god's perfect word and therefore there must be a reason for the contradiction - which he was unable to identity, of course.
All in all there is little to be gained other than hopefuly being able to whittle away at the creationist crust so much that you find a way through and set in motion some kind of event chain that rescues them from the prison they have thrown themselves into.
In my personal experience too, there is only frustration made out of discussing with these people :) They cannot be rationalized with and any evidence you show them will be scuffed at; why, god doesn't have to be proven right?! There is just no way you can argument them out of their circular reasonings unless they want to leave themselves, but then they can (un)fortunately no longer be considered creationists or fundamentalists I believe, so.
Anyway, my last instance I had I was arguing with a fundie who believed in demons and angels as being physical in this world; I asked what evidence there is and she obviously couldn't provide it and it kept going on like that. It just never ends, it's in a way somewhat pointless overall, although there might be some fun in the beginning.