Rather than complaining about the treatment of creationists, perhaps you, or some of the other creationists, could just bring evidence to the debate?
That's all that's needed.
Example: When different creationists place the date of the global flood variously from 4,350 years ago, to about 10,000 years ago, to the K-T boundary at 65.5 million years ago, to even the P-T boundary at 252 million years ago, what are we to think of their scientific rigor? If creationists can't agree on a date, and provide supporting evidence for that date, why should we take any of their arguments concerning the flood seriously?
Creationists must expect that any evidence they proffer will be subject to scrutiny and skepticism--that's the way science works.
Instead, what we generally see are unsupported claims being proffered, with little to no effort to support them with evidence. In a lot of cases those claims require that the laws of physics be ignored, but no evidence is provided to either support those claims or to explain all of the many "unintended consequences" that are a necessary result of the claims.
Example: The RATE study: the Institute of Creation Research (ICR) and the Creation Research Society initiated an eight-year research program to investigate the validity of radioisotope dating of rocks. In an effort to support a young earth, they suggested an accelerated decay rate, but failed to explore how such an increase in the decay rates might have occurred. And they failed to explain how, if decay rates were accelerated during the one year of the flood, the resulting heat--released over a one-year period instead of a couple of billion years--didn't cook the earth to a cinder. Along with the heat problem there would also have been a radiation problem. Noah and the rest of the inhabitants of the ark would have had to survive radiation perhaps a million times greater than it is today. How they do dat?
So, given all the outlandish things creationists want us to believe, without supporting evidence, they don't get half the kicking around here that they really deserve.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
™ Version 4.2
(1)
