Alright, I think I'll stop lurking around here and start contributing.
My Apple Challenge proves that there's no science in Genesis 1 at all --- yet people hate it for some reason.
As far as I can tell, people don't like the Apple Challenge because it really doesn't prove anything at all. I seem to recall a poll about this particular challenge that reached the same conclusion, and yet I keep seeing you pop into threads challenging people to take it. Put yourself in their shoes...
I contend that there is absolutely no evidence for the Flood --- yet I get ridiculed.
Again, this is just me, but as far as I can tell, you are ridiculed because you admit that there is no evidence and yet you continue acting like you know it happened. It is frustrating.
My latest thread shows that almost everyone who takes my Ex-nihilo Challenge cannot explain how mass/energy came into existence; yet creatio ex nihilo is the only one that is automatically ruled out as an option by those "in the know."
I saw at least a few people on that thread who did not rule it out, but perhaps you were only referring to a specific group.
I contend the earth is 4.57 billion years old, then get accused of being a YEC.
From what I have seen you post, you don't
quite share the same definition age with us.
My Bicycle Challenge shows that a single bicycle can have two different ages, an existential age and a physical age, and it gets ridiculed; while the age of rocks on the earth routinely "reset" themselves.
I have not seen this thread, but I do know that rocks do reset themselves under certain conditions. Are you refuting that, or are you simply pointing out the similarities between rocks that have existed since the big bang, yet are dated as only 4.5 billion years old, and your bike thread?
Some say believing in Creationism stunts scientific growth, yet no one at all can tell me what they can do differently in a laboratory or science class that a Creationist cannot do.
I think the point here is that Creationism has no scientific applications. It doesn't matter if a scientist is a Creationist or not, as long as it doesn't interfere with their work.
I claim we hold science up to a higher Standard than even "scientists" themselves do, then get ridiculed for bashing it.
AV, you just admitted that you have absolutely no scientific evidence for many of your claims here. How is this a higher standard?
-----------
But again, I don't claim to be speaking for anyone else, and since I haven't really contributed anything yet, I can't speak for myself quite yet.