As for "How am I being illogical? Please be specific" - again, you miss the point that in a discussion, the writer/speaker decides what to say, but it is the reader/listener who decides whether it makes sense. And, whether you like it or not most of your readers have decided that what you write is logically inconsistant, confused or simplistic. And again, in the interests of avoiding confusion, that's not the same thing as wrong [though of course its quite easy to be both]. So rather than add more examples to the growing pile, why not just deal with the logical inconistancies that have been raised so far. If you need help, there are many sites on the web to help distinguish between valid and invalid logical arguments.
We all have presuppositions--beliefs that we hold when we come to the table. I examine the evidence in the light of my presuppositions (i.e. that of young earth creationism).
Your saying that I am being logically inconsistent means nothing to the reader unless you explain why. Like I've said before, we've all been too general and need to get specific. For instance, the atheists here are being inconsistent when they say that the universe is the result of random chance processes (simply speaking, everything came from nothing, or else matter is eternal), and then they go about debating me as if they had a basis for believing in right and wrong, absolutes, and truth.
You say that there is evidence for evolution. Fine. I say that there is evidence for creationism. Now what? Instead of sitting here glaring at each other like two kindergartners, let's get down in the dirt and point things out. I've proposed to you the jellyfish of Mosinee. What do you say to that? How about the grand canyon?.......transitional fossils? Again, I keep hearing "We have found millions of transitional forms"--can somebody point me as to where I can see them? What are their names?
I really think that we ought to talk epistemology. How about those philosophical problems I presented? you all haven't even touched on inductive inference--do you have no answer for me?
You say that 'most of my readers have decided that what I write is logically inconsistent, confused or simplistic'. Perhaps. But is that because they have decided that I'm wrong, or is it because I'm not representing the Creationist position rightly? I would say the former, unless you can give me evidence for the latter. Let me repeat; I think we ought to get more specific. I want somebody to pick out one thing I say, and pick it apart. 'This is why this is wrong. Here's how you're being contradictory--you say A here, but over here you say B.'
Fair enough? I'm listening (contrary to popular opinion). :)