What type of skeptic are you?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'creationist theory', I'm assuming you're not going for biblical creationism since that has already been disproved, so there's no need to look at any more theories.If it was supported by evidence, as opposed to rhetoric then, sure, I'd consider it. The trouble for any creationist theory is that it has to fight against a whole load of obstacles:1. The evidence against theism.
2. The radical success of naturalist explanations of the universe.
3. The compelling evidence of natural origins.
4. It's inherent weakness as an explanatory power.Basically naturalist explanations have worked so very, very much better than theistic ones for everything that has been explained so far, so any non-naturalistic explanation has to be really, really damn good.

Well, of course you do. But that isn't the point. I'm saying that I'm not biased to reject creationism, per se, but that I am predisposed to reject it because it goes against things that have already been proven to me (to my satisfaction). Do you see the difference? You can't just cherry pick evidence; it doesn't work like that. morphologically stable genuses (I say genus rather than species, because the standard examples are not actually the same species throughout the time period, merely morphologically similar) are not a problem for evolution (their absence would be, incidently), but clear lines of decent are a killer problem for creationism.By analogy suppose I claim that the mathematical symbol ² doesn't mean 'squared' but '+2' - I imagine you'd be rather unimpressed if I claimed that the example '2² = 4' seemed to support my asserion.

You're claiming it suits creation better than evolution - it doesn't. And it would be irrelevant if it did. Why? Because once something is disproved it doesn't making any difference what supports it, it's still wrong.Let's take another analogy. Suppose someone is run over. Suppose multiple witnesses report that they were struck by blue V-reg Ford Mondeo Ghia X 2.0 Saloon with the numberplate of my car. Imagine the witnesses report that the driver was dressed in black, has long hair and was wearing glasses. Suppose further that, yes, my car shows signs of damage consistent with having struck a person - and DNA tests confirm that the blood in the grill is that from the struck person.All that evidence points to me having been involved in the accident, and then driven off.Now suppose that the is irrefutable evidence I was elsewhere at the time. Let's say I was on a plane and CCTV cameras have recorded me entering the plane, and leaving it in Glasgow - something nicely irrefutable like that.Now do you think I was involved in the accident? Of course not. I couldn't have been - the other evidence doesn't make any difference, once you've got something that proves it wasn't so it can't be so. Which is why falsifiability is such a big jazz in science.

Either your trying to make a point that is going over me head, or we simply disagreeing. I'm not sure which.You claim 'stuck in a rut' creatures are evidence for creation, I claim they're not. Is there something else? Are you claiming simply because I disagree with you on this I must be doing so because I'm blinded by adherance to evolution?