How about researching some of this yourself and then you'll learn what biblical creationists really say and believe.
Can you provide some examples in which we misconstrue what creation science argues? Furthermore, are you and everyone else here willing to admit you're wrong about what evolution is (since nearly every word from creationists about evolution is wrong).
Are you afraid of learning something new? Heck, yes!
We accept evolution because it's where the evidence leads us. If there's legitimate evidence disproving evolution, then we have nothing to lose by changing our minds. Creationists, on the other hand, can not allow themselves to admit creationism to be false because doing so would force them to admit that the Bible, or their understanding of it, is wrong.
Creation science isn't built on evidence, but built on the assumption that the Bible is both literal and unquestionably true. Therefore, creationists believe all evidence MUST point to creationism because the Bible is true. But the reality is that evidence does not point towards literal creation, it points towards evolution.
Creationists don't reject evolution due to lack of evidence, but because accepting evolution would counter the literal interpretation of Genesis. It really is that simple.
I don't accept evolutionary bull just because. I'm big on critical thinking.
Critical thinking requires you to admit that it's possible your own views might be wrong and it requires you to be open to changing your views. Are you willing to admit that it's possible the literal interpretation of the Bible might be wrong? If so, are you willing to change your views in the light of evidence?
If you answered, "I will never even consider that the literal interpretation of the Bible is wrong because I know for a fact that it's not", then you are not using critical thinking skills to come to your conclusion.
I believe that there needs to be more than one option for discussion. Science used to be about quality dialogue of opposing ideas.
No, science is a very particular method in which we evaluate reality. If something doesn't abide by scientific methodology, such as creationism, then there's absolutely zero reason for it to be discussed. And I know, you want to talk about how evolution isn't actually science - but the problem is that you constantly ignore everything we say about evolution being scientific. We tell you about how evolution is verified through science and you simply scoff it off as untrue without using any valid arguments what-so-ever. Every time creationists are corrected, they simply move onto another anti-evolutionary claim without addressing who is right or wrong about their previous claim that's been debunked.
Here's a video that honestly does mirror what it feels like debating creationists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs
Creationist makes claim A.
Evolutionist makes counter argument to claim A.
Creationist makes claim B - failing to address the counter argument to claim A.
Evolutionist makes counter argument to Claim B.
Creationist makes claim C - failing to address the counter argument to claim B.
Evolutionist makes counter argument to Claim C.
Creationist makes claim A.
Evolutionist explains he already made a counter argument to claim A.
Creationist makes claim B.
Evolutionist explains he already made a counter argument to claim B.
If evolutionary theories are so air-tight, why do people who believe such things get so angry and defensive?
See above.
If your beliefs are so strong, you shouldn't have to defend them.
If creationists didn't spread misinformation, we wouldn't bother. But they do.
They should be able to hold up on their own.
If people are misinformed about what evolution is, then evolution must be defended and those who don't understand be corrected. Furthermore, if a group of people are going to reject science based solely on the assumption that anything that contradicts their Bible must automatically be considered wrong, then there's also more need to defend is since no idea can hold its own against assumptions.
