Unless folks here are willing to lose their misinformed understanding of what they *think* creation science is and actually learn something about what it really is, I cannot have a normal debate with anyone.
I started a thread so that you might relieve me of my misconceptions about CS. You've been a no show in any practical fashion. You must also realize that repitition isn't one of the better forms of debate.
You've stated that CS is a real, honest-to-goodness science, with evidence, hypotheses and experiments. All you need do to support that point is list evidence, hypotheses and experiments. No wiley rhetoric required.
Redefining science to suit is not valid. If I redefine science as "heads or tails", I can make a whole lot of things scientific that currently are concidered iffy.
I'll check back in a few weeks to see if anyone bothered to educate themselves as to what Creation Science really is. Only then can real debate ensue. I wasted an entire day here on this forum only to have to come to the realization that no one here has a realistic understanding of the truth about what a creationist is actually studying and why their study is every bit as much a scientific one--studying the very same earth and life forms that evolutionists study, using the very same scientific methods, data and evidence.
You're going to find that if you're not going to put in the effor to make your own point no one is going to make it for you. Furthermore, I take the above post as strong evidence, lending a high degree of certainty, that I know what CS really is. Just what I thought it was: Much ado about nothing.
Fail.
Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.
™ Version 4.2
