Help dismantling Creationist arguments:

[darth_timon]

It's not really a debate, but I'm slowly developing my stance on Creationism on my website and would like some assistance in making sure I'm not making any glaring errors for any would-be creationists to latch on to. I've shared the page a couple of times on other sites without any problems so far, but that's only because I think everyone so far has agreed with me.

http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/what-i-think/creationism

[Borgholio]

Well for me, when I deal with creationists, my biggest argument is the "prove it" argument. Take the 6,000 year old Earth idea. They got that from reading the Bible. Say the Bible did not exist? How would they get that 6,000 year figure from? It's not something they can perform experiments to determine, because when you do THAT...you get the 4.6 billion year old mark that we have today. So when I argue vs a Creationist, I demonstrate that every thing I say can be proven. I take away their Bible and they are left with nothing but their faith. Since all they have is faith and no evidence, it's not science and can not be considered as such.

[Elheru Aran]

The true issue with creationism is the mindset that goes with it. You can't remove the Bible from the equation because it's an intrinsic part of everything that supposedly happened. It's more or less their sole piece of evidence other than misrepresented or outright false "science". It has extra authority by being the literal Word of God and all.

It's not an coincidence that creationist belief tends to accompany fundamentalist Christianity. In general arguing with young-earth creationists is ultimately pointless, because while they may concede a few points, their base beliefs will never really change. All you can do is give them a few head-scratchers to come up with work-arounds for.