Let's just take a look at a few of the tactics you gtuys have used.

"Creationists aren't peer-reviewed."

I show you that they are peer-reviewed.

"They're not peer-reviewed by respectable scientists."

What would be a respectable scientist? Say one who's an expert in their field? Well by definition its not peer-review unless its reviewed by other experts.

"RATE doesn't matter because Henke said something about pressure."

So now you don't have to be peer-reviewed to do real science? Creationists are held to the highest standards by you guys (standards that can never be met), while evolutionists can basically do whatever they want....as long as its in favor of evolution.



Talk about desperation. Here's the problem. I now present scientific, peer-reviewed evidence (the exact stuff you guys say we don't have) that the earth is young. Your response? To quite non peer-reviewed criticism, and then call a damaging rebuttle of that criticism 'desperate'. Which only begs the question of why its desperate.

I submit that, in fact, based on comments by the remaining evolutionists, you guys are getting desperate. Creationism is becoming much more sophisticated, and the evidence has become even more damning to evolution so you're left with two options. 1). Admit that creationism is valid. 2). Ad hominem attacks.

I don't have to wonder which one you guys choose. This religious devotion is really rather interesting. Especially coming from a militant atheist.

Here's one way to shed some light on the problem. Quote some peer-reviewed evidence that RATE is faulty. The burden of proof is on you, a decade of research speaks stronger than your last desperate attempts to save your theory.