[sickoflibs]

RE :”Yeah, OK, like evolution strictly follows the scientific method - anything historically-based is not a hard science. It does not follow the scientific method. It is neither observable nor repeatable. And it is not falsifiable so it really doesn’t matter who is included in the debate, just a bunch of hot air [no, not referring to global warming - another hoax of our times].”

There is some truth to that, however the fact that evolutionists have falsified different evolutionary theories when new finds didn't fit them sets it apart from Creationist science.

Creationism Science is just ‘Look over there, don't look over here. Everything just appeared a few thousand years ago and that's all there is too it. Now lets get back to those missing bones’

[DoodleDawg]

Creationism Science is just ‘Look over there, don't look over here. Everything just appeared a few thousand years ago and that's all there is too it. Now lets get back to those missing bones’

I submit that 'creationism science' is an oxymoron.

[BrandtMichaels]

Well now that’s not the complete truth either. There is not just one evolution nor creation theory and the debunking depends upon who you are talking to.

But this one hydroplate theory [yes, it does include more science than you might think and predictions too] is better than any evolutionary theory because it gives the cleanest overall interpretation of all the signs imho of course...

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html