[GodGunsGuts]

==Trying to pick holes in evolution doesn’t make creationism a science.

True enough. But if those wholes are being picked based on the hypothesis that the biblical account of creation and the noaitic flood are true, then it’s science. For instance: creationists predict that the earth is young, they predict not a tree of life, but an orchard of trees with no transitionals outside the bounds of the biblical kinds; they predict evidence of a global flood, etc, etc. They are forming hypothesis, and they are testing the same using the scientific method. That’s science.

[doc30]

True enough. But if those wholes are being picked based on the hypothesis that the biblical account of creation and the noaitic flood are true, then it’s science. For instance: creationists predict that the earth is young, they predict not a tree of life, but an orchard of trees with no transitionals outside the bounds of the biblical kinds; they predict evidence of a global flood, etc, etc. They are forming hypothesis, and they are testing the same using the creationists have yet to find any evidence of such occurences whereas there are mountains of evidence against them. Hence, the need to corrupt science to make it fit the warped, "Lyin' for the Lord" creationist/ID superstition of a special 6 day creation 6000 years ago. Creationists need to be comforted in their ignorance.