The fallacy of this non-debate is the two starting positions, they are not mutually exclusive nor do they represent even a small fraction of the possibilities of what constitutes life and how life comes about.

That the creationists have yet to provide a single piece of evidence that shows that evolution cannot have occurred, means that an argument with them would be like arguing with flat earthers.

As creationism relies solely on faith, and athiests have none, the creationists' vacuous arguments will simply fall on deaf ears. Faith is no replacement for reality.

To pass peer review requires evidence, and rigorous unbiased scientific treatment of the topic. As creationists have yet to submit a paper that complies, they have yet to be published.

Only creationists take other creationists seriously, real scientists, judges etc now have no time for their medievil views.

You are kidding aren't you?

"Both are brash, as prize fighters at a weigh in. Let’s imagine their comments before stepping on the scales. Dawkins goes first. “Evolution is a fact. It’s a fact which is established as securely as essentially any other fact we have in science. Since the evidence for evolution is so absolutely and totally overwhelming, no one who looks at the evidence could possibly doubt it if they were sane and not stupid. So the only remaining possibility is that they’re ignorant. And most people who don’t agree with evolution are in fact ignorant.”

"Carl Wieland, representing Australia’s creationists, is just as plainspoken. “Non-living molecules evolving into all life forms, including man, over millions of years. We find that a frankly bizarre proposition.”

Dawkins statement makes total sense, he absolutely outweighs and beats Wieland hands down in your prizefighter metaphor.

Oh dear, Wieland's lonely little 'frankly bizarre' comment - is frankly bizarre in itself....not to mention that rejecting overwhelming evidence is obviously showing total ignorance...you are kidding by comparing these two answers aren't you? Tell me you are!

You've put forth a pretty pathetic argument, I'm not surprised that no one would agree to debate you.

Good try, but epic fail I'm afraid.

Some of the speakers themselves have been quite explicit over why they see both no need for debate, and the issues with doing so :

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/119

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/a_reply_to_carl_wieland.php

Debate happens across the internet 24/7/365. There is explicit literature and responses, indeed Dawkins has books on the topic. Debate just gives a platform for creationism to repeat it's effort to give itself the same credence that science has by repetition and not evidence.

The atheist convention is a convention of atheists on the rise, looking at current situations and the future. It's not a place that is yet another platform for the well funded creationist movement to give themselves credibility where none should be forthcoming.

These people just want to be 'in the picture' all the time, it does not matter if they are wrong or right, they just want their ignorance of science to be seen as somehow relevant in the 21st century.

Shadow Minister shows her/his ignorance

'As creationism relies solely on faith, and athiests have none, the creationists''

athiests have no faith. They have more blind faith than a 2 year old in their adult fantasies.

Dawkins explains why he won't engage Creation 'scientists' in his book, 'The Devil's Chaplain'(p256);

'These people have no hope of convincing reputable scientists by their ridiculous argments. Instead, what they seek is the oxygen of respectibility. We give them this oxygen by the mere act of ENGAGING with them at all. They don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public.'

Creation 'scientists' are no more than charlatan hacks from Vaudeville selling snakeoil and hokus pokus.

Therefore, as a general rule, it is always better to ignore the drunk looney in the street who talks to the fairies and mouths obscenities.