“Yes I know JGC. Anyone who holds the postion of "No Evolution based on available Evidence," no matter what scientific credentials they may have --- are simply biased and dishonest.”

>>You’ve missed the third possibility—that they’re ignorant. Recall we’ve directly observed evolution to occur in living populations, and that these observations include speciation events which by definition represent macroevolution.

“How can I use them to compete with the vast knowledge of JGC?”

>>You could begin by identifying who they are and providing citations to the articles you claim they’ve published, so we can all judge their claims on their own merit.

“ I suggest most creationists (like my type) do not believe in creationism because the Bible says so or because the evidence can be easily demonstrated. We believe in creationism because we think evolution is a joke.”

>>It’s no wonder you’ve the false impression evolution is a joke--your posts indicate that not only do you fail to understand what evolutionary models state or predict but that you’re woefully ignorant of the evidence from which they derive.

“Creationism is the only default answer.”

>>Creationism isn’t a default answer, however—there’s always the possibility that both evolution and creationism are wrong and some yet-to-be-determined third possibility is the correct explanation for observed biological diversity. If evolution was falsified tomorrow you’d still face the necessity to provide credible support for your preferred creationist model.

“And the fact that most of us (like most people) believe in God, that makes our answer all the more likely.”

>>I believe in god as well—doesn’t the fact that I’ve both believe in god AND can point to a huge body of objective evidence in support of evolution make my answer far more likely than one that’s rooted solely in faith?