Why do creationists largely use only straw-man arguments?

[Earth]

It contradicts the literally taken creation story. There's an ideologically driven separation between man and animal, and that's the way creationists would like it to stay. There's a lot of deeper issues involved than simply creationists smirking at the erroneous thought that man was spawned from an ape.

[Earth]

Once again, this displays simply clinging to the idea of god and not be able to let go. Have you ever thought why would god use such a process when he could just poof it into existence? Accept your fate, there's no fairytale life for the goody goodies, and no endless torment for the baddies.

That's an easily counterable argument, though, if you consider God/Creator to work methodically; essentially a scientific theological view.

[Earth]

I also believe we should assume it doesn't exist. But I ground the assumption in intuition, while recognizing its arbitrariness. You instead obfuscate, conceding on the one hand that there is no evidence in either direction, while still awkwardly maintaining that the creature's existence is "improbable." The two positions directly contradict one another.

All I object to is the notion that a "presumption" against the existence/occurrence of anything/everything is justified by objective considerations.

You're intentionally moving the goalposts now, of course there's no objective criteria to use; but then again, no one was claiming there to be.

"Improbability" is the perfect term for a discussion dealing with the unknown, particularly notions like this one. You end up reducing the burden of proof concept into your own straw man, ascribing claims of 'objectivity' onto those who argue with you, and then while agreeing with our conclusions, you seem to miss exactly what what that agreement rests on; namely the "improbability" of the creature's existence.

You sound like a first year philosophy student flexing his mouth.

[Earth]

I agree, of course, that the burden of proof is on "the one attemtping [sic] to prove something." By definition, proving something means proving it. But we're discussing PiT's very different claim: that any positive statement should be presumed wrong until evidence is found in its favor.

That's not quite the gist of it; one attempts to assert the existence of x, especially through faith, not to actually prove it. This is the crux of faith, and it's circumvention of reason. I didn't see Pit's post earlier, but his post most definitely rings true, so long as spirituality is concerned.

As for Earth, I suggest that he read PiT's post, and figure out how he wants to torture it into anything other than an appeal to an objective standard.

Nevertheless, I don't take your "objection" against "presumption" seriously. Might as well toss out all assumptions of scientific accuracy since an appeal to an objective standard is now deemed useless.