Oh get a little backbone.
I've debated with scientists on other issues and they've said things like this to me. The flying spaghetti monster, purple unicorns and Santa Claus are favourites.
And why would they say that to you? You are not a creationist.
The key to this is that they are asking you to back up your position with evidence. It is, after all, what scientists have to do all the time. If you can't do it, then logically how is your particular claim or belief any more tenable than than any other claim or belief?
O really. So everytime you guys cannot back up your claims with an observable process I should mock you? Interesting.
Also, please keep in mind that none of the posters here mean the Christian religion or God. It's the specific position some Christians happen to have, which claims that the earth is 6000 years old and that all life was created as it is today.
I've been around that corner enough to know what is being implied.
There is a lot of evidence contrary to this belief, which is why you are being asked to explain what your own evidence is for your views. If you are claiming that creationism is scientific, then this is what you need to do. Is this what you are claiming?
And from now on when you guys try and prove evolution but cannot show the millions of years observable process, I shall mock you. And when someone asks, I'll tell them that you said that this was the way all scientists do it and it's okay according to you.
How about some evidence for the Grand Canyon being less than 6000 years old, or carved by a flood?
What would you believe? Nothing right? So what's the point you implied there is not any evidence that you would accept for a flood or creation. But yet you keep asking?
