You can lead a Creationist to factual information, but you can't make them think.
Anti-evolutionists are a strange grouping. You don't find anti-Quantumists, anti-Einsteinists, anti-Newtonists, anti-Pasteurists, and when you do find an anti-Gallileoist one knows you are either dealing with a practical joker or an idiot.
For some "strange reason", a branch of science subject to the same set of rules (as far as determining accuracy etc.) as other sciences is declared to be at fault, most often by people who would have difficulty even defining Evolution in two concise sentences without copy and pasting from somewhere. Yet these same people typically accept all the other branches of science with theories sometimes less substancial than those applying to evolution.
This same group of anti-evolutionists, most of them go to a dentist if they have tooth-ache. Not to some unqualified person down the road who says that all qualified dentists are wrong. When they need a lawyer they pay for someeone who is qualified, rather than go for some amateur legal enthusiast who is convinced the entre legal system is flawed.
Quite why they insist upon educated, experienced, qualified treatment for their legal affairs and teeth (and one can add their drains, their buildings, their cars, etc.) and yet throw these standards out the window when it comes to evolution I don't know.
Quite why they accept the products of modern science (none of them would be here on this board if they did not), and the scientific theory behind them, yet insist modern science is wrong about one subject which uses the same standards and methodology as sciences they do accept is hard to understand.
It is not as though anyone has disproved evolution; and evolution is very disprovable. The entire theory could come crashing down if evidence contradicting it was found, it is falsifiable... it's just no one has managed to falsify it yet.
So, this strange grouping of anti-evolutionists have;
- a totally contradictory approach to just one strand of modern science compared to the rest
- are rarely educated about the subject, to the extent that they often have to have errors in the very basics of their understandng of the subject pointed out to them.
In absense of proof the theory is wrong, in absense of a decent level of knowledge about the theory, in total contradiction to the professional standards they normally insist upon in other areas of technical, professional or scientific knowlerdge, they declare it is wrong!
In any other field of human knowledge such a grouping of contrarians would be riduculed as much as a flat-Earther flying from London to Sydney would be, castgated for their laziness and arrogance in making declarations about a subject they know little about. Lampooned for their inconsistence.
Yet somehow it is the anti-Evolutionists who are the ones accusing others of arrogance, and it is the anti-Evolutionists who get upset if their 'vast level of knowledge' (NOT) about the subject get treated in the way it deserves
RAF, would you accept legal advice from a fishmonger who was convinced that modern law was flawed? Nope. You're not stupid, are you?
If you were a musician with a good knowledge of musical history, how would you react if someone told you that music actually was invented in 1066 by a monk called Bert, and this person refused to even really respond to your counter argument or go and read-up on the subject?
You are repeating arguments that sound like they are made by a fishmonger arguing law and assuming that you have cleverly found out the faults in evolutionary theory that tens of thousands of people who have studied the subject their entire lives missed.
If you had some facts at your disposal to show evolution was wrong, great. There is nothing wrong with challenging conventional wisdom provided you have reason to do so. Gallileo challenged conmventional wisdom... he had facts at his disposal to show conventional wisdom was a fault. Anti-evolutionists have no such facts to show evolution is wrong.
If you think otherwise it is simply because you need to know more about the subject.
Everyone has a right to an opinion; the opinions people have are not of equal worth.
The racist has a right to their opinion; but their opinion isn't fit to line a cat toilet with.
Why do you act as if an uninformed opinion can stand modern science on its head when you know perfectly well from your experience with racists that some opinions are just WRONG and of no worth?