What I would be interested in hearing from NImble Duck et al is some detail on what (if anything) he does agree with and what he doesn't. Perhaps then the "why" can be discussed in a more positive and reasonable manner.
I've seen very little serious and specific counter-arguments to any of Cofty's posts. Does Duck agree with the concept that an animal may adapt and evolve? Does he accept any evidence of evolution being observed? Does he consider all gene mutations to be unable to produce positive and sustainable change?
Cofty has been clear that he considers the statement that "all living things descended from a common ancestor" is a fact. He has presented numerous lines of argument to back that up. What exactly is false about the evidence that means it's not possible to accept that statement as a fact? Where does it fall down? Are there any points on which a creationist could agree?
For me as a bit of a spectator it's a bit like the Indecent Proposal premise - it's not really that the guy's wife won't sleep with Robert Redford, it's a matter of how much money it will cost. It's not that creationists don't believe evolution, it's how much evolutionary theory and science that they are actually prepared to accept.