First,Kelly, we are supposed to be talking about creation science only here, not evolution. Do you know any scentific theories that needs to reference rival theories to be explained? If creation science is science, it should not be needed to use evolution to describe what it does.
Then, how do you expext to convince people that creation science is science without debating? It seems to be a very strange position and does the opposite of what you are seeking.
I also need to add that to compare the two models, you need to show us what is the creationist model first (btw it's also the subject of this thread). After all, it's you who said that we didn't know what the creationist model was. The comparison should be done after that and in an other thread.
Edited by Son, : correcting typo.
Edited by Son, : answering kelly's edit.