In my experience, it has been the person who advances untrue stories who can be cornered. It often happens that untrue stories contradict themselves, and all one needs to do is point this out.
Please give an example where you believe this to have happened. I don't see any evidence, for example, challenging the old age of the Grand Canyon, gradual uplift, or its having been carved by a river. I don't see any evidence challenging the correlation of the dates of tree rings, ice cores and varves. I don't see any evidence challenging the radiometric dates of rocks; that ongoing thread is fascinating, particularly the recent evidence of what would have happened if decay rates had been faster in the past (we'd be toast).
I have defended the history of the flood and other things.
I can't remember this; please refresh my memory. I would enjoy talking about the feasibility of a flood if you'd like to start a thread on it.
As the creation events took place in the past, the primary methods of investigating them are historic methods.
Like "the Bible says so"? WHy is it not also logical to evaluate the scientific feasibility of creationist claims? See above.
it may seem strange that anticreationists are averse to history, even to the discussion of how history should be investigated.
As anyone can see who reads that thread, your idea of this seems to be to tar evolutionists past and present in hopes that this will also somehow invalidate their theories and all the science which supports them. This is a logical fallacy called
ad hominem.
It is also incompatible with proper scientific methods, as we've demonstrated in many other threads
Please link to a place where you feel such a demonstration has been made. I don't see any evidence challenging . . . well, see above.
One final note: If you reply to any of my requests for evidence or a link with "scroll up", "I've already covered that so I won't do it again" "the answer's obvious to anyone who isn't stupid," "it's not my job to find things for you here," "why should I bother," "it's been proved so the subject's closed," "tough for you if you can't remember," etc, then I will take it as an admission that you are unable to provide said evidence or links.
