(For the record, have you read Hume's The Natural History of Religion?

Also, baconbits, since you seem to be a proponent of treating creationism as an equally viable scientific theory, can you please formulate it using scientific terms? As in, what happened, how, and when? Because the vague notion of "All life has been created by an intelligent designer." isn't going to cut it.
As it stands now, there's nothing to debate here.)

You're asking me to summerize creationists tenets when evolution doesn't even have to do the same. In a nut shell creationism means that an intellgent designer created organisms for the pacific niche they now fill. I'm not going to specify any further than that when speaking for all creationists because I can't.

There are many variations of creationism just as there are many variations of evolution. There are evolutionists who believe God created the first cell because they know how implausible it is for a cell to simply have formed by itself. There are others who believe that an animal cell was formed first, while some believe the plant cell was first. Some postulate that dinosaurs were the precursor to birds while others believe differently. There are some who believe in puncuated equilibrium, some believe humans evolved from an aquatic ape, and etc. There is no summation of evolution other than the fact that it is the theory that species gradually changed to become the creatures that inhabit the earth now.

So don't expect me to do what evolutionists themselves don't have to do. You look at me and through you bias assume I'm ignorant and impose additional verification on my views that you don't on your own. If you really want to debate this than pose a logical challenge and not a flailing accusation.