Musings on recent encounter with a rabid evolutionist

Why am I always surprised at the sheer meanness that comes out of anti-creationists? Why do I always expect at least some degree of civility or even an honest attempt to be fair to creationist interpretations of the facts? I really ought to know better by now but I never quite give up nevertheless.

What is it about anything I said to "Pressie" that deserves his calling me mentally deficient, mentally disturbed and a liar? I call lots of things people SAY at EvC crazy or insane or stupid, but I don't call the PEOPLE there by those names. Must say, however, that Pressie himself began to look like someone who had lost his marbles by the end of the email exchange with me. I'd post some of it but since he didn't post any of it at EvC I guess it's better to leave well enough alone.

Didn't I make the extreme straw man misrepresentations of creationism clear enough?
These are straw man arguments:

• to say we think the Flood built the mountains,
• to think it would be problem for the Flood that there are places on the earth where there aren't any strata,
• to think it would be a problem for the Flood that there are mountains on the earth that have no marine fossils,
• or to claim that we haven't noticed that the seashells in the mountains are IN the mountains and not just on the surface, therefore the Flood didn't put them there?
• to think you can compare the Flood to the Bay of Fundy's high tides is maybe not exactly a straw man, but something crazier

Is this sort of silliness ENTIRELY the result of the incompetence of the creationists they have there recently?

Or is it just the refusal of evolution-geared people to give even a moment's thought to creationist claims?

Again, it does seem to me that if you want to have a debate between evolutionism and creationism that serves any purpose other than ridiculing creationism it should be conducted between people who can pass a minimal test on what are considered to be the main arguments on both sides. I suppose that could be a discussion in itself simply trying to identify them of course.

And as soon as I say that I recognize it's impossible. The debate is a fraud and shouldn't even be attempted at all.