Under One God, if you sincerely wish a discussion on rationality, I would strongly suggest you first concentrate on your spelling and grammar. I rarely if ever bother to read any of your comments all the way through; it's just too much hard work.
It's 'irrational' to think you can put up a credible argument on reason or science, when you put so little effort into basic communication.

DSM,

Thousands of papers get submitted every week, many claiming break throughs which on rigourous review are shown to have been derived through flawed research. The ones that make it through this review are published, but are subject to further review.

Only a small percentage of "breakthroughs" make it through this process, but none of the creationist papers.

The creationist papers suffer from a few handicaps in that they bring no new evidence, and their sole purpose is to try to refute and reinterpret existing data, and offer no real alternative.

Given that there is absolutely no direct evidence of the theory of creation, the rock throwing at evolution lacks credibility.

Shadow,
I don’t know what you mean by ‘rock throwing at evolution.’ Do you think evolution is above scrutiny?

I contend with your idea that creationists bring no new evidence. Creationists are involved in some novel research. You could read about that in their peer reviewed journals.

However, why need anyone re-invent the wheel? There is evidence already accumulating and out there for anyone to read. It’s not necessary to uncover new evidence to make a good case for life arising from an intelligent source. As famous philosopher Antony flew recently noted, “The findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

With all due respect to Antony Flew, I don't think he knew much more about what has happened in DNA research in the last 50 years that you do, Dan S.

But to give you the benefit of the doubt about 'novel' research, which peer reviewed journals might I find some solid new creationist stuff. Just a couple of links would suffice. I am really interested in what you think is 'novel research'.

bugsy the issue isnt that creationsts rebut the theory[but that evolutionists prove their theory...and thats what you lot are unable to do[yes you can give 7 species evolutions[seagulls ringspecies making other seagulls etc[but this is micro evolution[WITHIN the species]

NOT macro evolution into a new genus[thats what science HAS NEVER recorded[let alone replicated]...what is science must be either documented and be able to be replicated[NO SCIENCE EVER HAS[thus evolution REMAINS a theory

if you feel[believe]..its a science..present YOUR proofs
i cant give proof there arnt fairies at the bottum of YOUR garden[but you make the absurd claim..[YOU PROVE IT]

prove that genus changes genus
prove that life can come from non life
the facts are not in..for evolution to be science

there are huge gaps in the fossil record[strangly just where they would need to CHANGE their genus...go figure[better yet give your proof that one genus evolved into any other genus]

>> Creationists are involved in some novel research. You could read about that in their peer reviewed journals.

i'm sure "novel" doesn't even begin to describe creationist research. i can also read about astrology research in peer-reviewed astrology journals. it doesn't mean astrology isn't crap.

what dan can't seem to point to is creationist research in established peer-reviewed biological journals. and, what he can't seem to point to are creationist articles unfairly refused publication in such journals.

>>Do you think evolution is above scrutiny?

god, you're an ignorant twerp. evolutionary biologists scrutinise evolution as their profession. if any real evidence against evolution came forth, it would be on the next cover of Nature. you clearly have not the remotest clue how science and scientific research works. yet you ceaselessly sermonise on science from your mount of ignorance.