I find it unrealistic because the goal is different. The paelontologist is looking to expand on the information about the geologic time scale and the creationist is trying to disprove. What a terrible conflict of interest.
Yes I know there was a bit of tongue in cheek, with the way you wrote it, but in fairness I still think the idea of a duel funded dig is not beyond the imposable, it would take some serious Ã¢â‚¬Ëœbridge mendingÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ to be sure.
Even of that meant abandoning the evolution theory? Keeping in mind there is definite evidence supporting the find.
As for the scientists not wanting to find Ã¢â‚¬ËœsomethingÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, I disagree, I can assure they would not fear finding a human foot print, because such a thing in the Mesozoic strata is an impossibility.
I meant the current evidences used for creation, what do you think of them? Do think it is deceptive or inaccurate?
Not sure I understand the question, if you mean Ã¢â‚¬Å“give me an exampleÃ¢â‚¬Â I would answer an Ã¢â‚¬Å“out of sequence fossilÃ¢â‚¬Â this would falsify evolution.
If you mean Ã¢â‚¬Ëœhow the evidence is presentedÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, I personally only require one rule, and that is honesty. I.e. If you present evidence, and I examining it and find it erroneous, or that the source is questionable, or is based on a false premise, I expect one to concede the point and not leave the debate hoping that all will be forgotten. Examining the claim in detail will find the error.