ID and YEC have done so well, despite being denied audiences by a hostile establishment, that they are dominating the conversation about origins as shown by evolutionism need to desperately react.
Um ... back in the real world, I don't know if you've noticed, 99% of creationism is in fact a "desperate reaction" to evolution in the form of angry whining about it. It's not like they're out there putting a positive case for the hypothesis that snakes used to be able to talk or that our sense of morality was initially acquired by eating fruit. No, it's evolution this and evolution that, over and over.
Similarly, if you look at what the evolutionists are writing you can read whole books about evolution which just talk about evolution and never find it necessary to point out the difficulties of verbal articulation in snakes.
Look at your own posting history using the forum search. You have made posts using the word "evolution" more times than the forum software will let me count. And the word "Eden" once. "Noah" three times. "Six days" --- never. "Adam" --- never. "Eve" --- never. "Tree of knowledge" --- never. You have barely mentioned the events in the Book of Genesis, preferring to bang on and on about evolution --- and you say what is "dominating the conversation about origins"? Creationism doesn't even dominate what creationists have to say about origins.
Evolutionists complaint would be that creationists ARE invoking scripture.
No, our complaint would be that you are completely unable to substantiate it with facts.
I don't except as basic presumptions. I deal with particular subjects or general themes without much verses because i attack on the evidence and the reasoning and investigation capability. I deal a great deal with mechanisms in nature and I guess not much with scripture. however scripture is the boundary and if so it would make a better product for the one who obeys it.
Creationism starts with a witness but evolution etc is all about the quality and quantity of evidence from nature. Thats the problem with modern evolutionism. Its coming under great and aggressive forensics.
I think if this was translated from Byersish into English it would say: "It's a good thing that the conversation is dominated by evolution, and that creationists have given up trying to make a case for creationism."
Well, you guys know your own business best; but the fact remains that the conversation is almost exclusively about evolution (and the other aspects of science that creationists don't like). To pretend otherwise, as you did in message 204, is ludicrous.