"Chuck77" writes:
It seems when it comes to Creationists claims they are often refuted with "prove it" or "show some evidence".
Does this seem unreasonable to you?
A claim without evidence is just simply that: a claim; a bare assertion.
It wouldn't be accepted in a court of law and it is not sufficient in science either.
"Chuck77" writes:
Since most if not all of what Creation scientists come up with will not be peer reviewed by the "real" Scientists then all we have is Evolutionists saying "PRATT" to new posts or comments. The only "evidence" Evolutionists will take is from the "real" Scientists.
When people accuse an argument of being a PRATT they are not ignoring evidence: they are saying that the evidence presented has been examined and found to be false - many times. It is not a refusal to accept 'real' evidence - it is an insistence on evidence being valid.
Would you accept that god was dead if someone provided a photoshop'ed picture of a dead bearded man? No, you wouldn't.
Is that because you refuse to accept 'real' evidence? No. It is because you would not accept false evidence.
"Chuck77" writes:
Also, most evolutionists like to say they have Science and evidence to back up their claims and we have the Bible or silly Creationist websites.
And those websites often declare that they will never accept any scientific conclusions that contradict their interpretation of the bible.
Do you think that is a valid way to do science?
"Chuck77" writes:
If the Evolutionists will never take our evidence serious what's the use?
You seem to be under the misapprehension that 'evolutionists' are atheists. Even Darwin was a christian.
Scientists will look at any evidence, but they will not accept faulty evidence - and nor (I hope) would you.