Judging from glancing at the articles on the front

[jarcenas]

page and the front page itself, don't you think the average layperson would be easily fooled into thinking creationism is scientific.

trueorigin.org/

because this person surely has . : www.youtube.com/user/aaronk1994

He once stated something according to this : "Atheists keep on referring me to TalkOrgins, go to TrueOrigin, it debunks everything TalkOrigins has to say."

[wmdkitty]

Spam spam spam spam...

[ouabache]

The TrueOrigin Archive comprises an intellectually honest response to what in fairness can only be described as evolutionism—the doctrine of strict philosophical naturalism as a necessary presupposition in matters of science history (i.e., origins).

Ok, so I've got to ask: When has non-naturalism ever accomplished anything? How does making super-naturalistic assumptions help us understand the universe around us? Can we make testable claims about the super-natural? No, of coure not. If we could test it then it would be classified at natural, not super natural. So really, why not adhere to a "doctrine of strict philosophical naturalism as a necessary presupposition in matters of science history"? It's worked pretty well so far.

[caretaker]

...you think the average layperson would be easily fooled into thinking creationism is scientific.

No.

As that's the only question you put forth, that's the only answer needed.

That's assuming you mean the articles on FSTDT. Really, the only people who believe in creationism have proven to have a complete lack of logic, nevermind grasp of science, and the rest who visit FSTDT are fully aware of the fundamental (heh) idiocy required to believe that creationism has any scientific support.