Creationism is scientific

I apologize if I kept you waiting. The other night I was posting my argument. I was doing pretty good and I even did a little research! But alas, my computer deleted what I wrote. So I decided to get back to it at a later time, which is now. Before I continue, I ask Pro to use a normal font if he can. There's something chaotic about the font that he is using. After thinking over what you've said, I concede this statement but I do not concede victory to you. I concede that Creationism is not a scientific theory but rather a historical theory, pertaining to a supernatural event that occurred in the past. Given the event's supernatural nature it cannot be recreated in a laboratory. However, to prove creationism, science is used, and I will attempt to prove that the methodology used by creationist scientists is scientific. With that said, I will begin. Since my opponent considers Creationism to be inseparably linked to Christianity and the Bible, though this is not necessarily the case, I consider myself permitted to use the Bible in my arguments, unless my opponent states otherwise. In his previous post my opponent gave me the accepted definition of a scientific theory: 1. "It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics)." Since it pertains to an event that happened in the past, this one is relatively difficult. However, the Bible has made some scientific predictions that have come true. For instance, the Bible has stated that the Earth is a sphere, and that is "hangs on nothing." If you don't believe me, I encourage you to look through the Bible yourself. It also says that the Universe is "stretched out like a tent." Scientists generally agree that the Universe is expanding. In the Old Testament it also ordered that people with diseases like leprosy be cast out of communities. Today we quarantine people with transmittable deadly illnesses. So, I think it accomplishes this first one pretty well. 2/3. "It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct." All right then. The Bible is also supported by archaeological evidence. For instance, take Belshazzar, the last King of Babylon mentioned in the Bible. Secular historians used this account as an excuse to mock the Bible, because there were no records of a King Belshazzar. They already knew who the king of Babylon was at the time. His name was Nabonidus, I think it was. And then one day...BAM! They found a cylinder talking about Belshazzar. It turned out he was the king's son, and that he ruled Babylon together with his father. It was a co-regency. And then there were the Hittites. There was a time when secular historians thought that the Hittites never existed, and that the Bible was just making it up. And then one day...BAM! They found evidence confirming the existence of the Hittites. Therefore, since the Bible is supported by both science and history, it's fair to say that the Bible meets this second criteria. 4. "It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time." Unfortunately, since the Bible never changes, it cannot be modified through new evidence. But thankfully, it doesn't need to. The arguments used to defend it change, but the Bible itself doesn't. So perhaps it doesn't meet this one so well. 5. "It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations." I don't know what this one means. Now that I've given some kind of answer to all of your definitions of a scientific theory, I will move on. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I couldn't agree more. Therefore God's invisibility doesn't disprove His existence. But still, archaeologists have been searching for decades now. You'd think that they'd find a transitional fossil. "RAPID DECAY THEORY: 1."It has been proven that the magnetic field fluctuates over thousands of years invalidating the idea of a magnetic field half-life. 2. The supposed half-life was gained using 150 years of data; not nearly enough for a prediction of activity over geological time scales." This is what you've said. First of all, I'd like to thank you for answering my contention on the Rapid Decay Theory. You're the first person I know of to have answered me when I talked about this. However, as for the Rapid Decay Theory not really being right, well, it did accurately predict what was happening on those planets, right? That would seem to suggest that it should at least be examined. But perhaps you're right. You said some other stuff as well, also something about Helium dating. You evolutionists sure do like to say that your theories have been "proven" or that creationist arguments have been "proven" wrong. However, creationists have come up with models to challenge carbon dating. Anyhow, I'll move on to what you define as pseudoscience. "Vague and/or exaggerated claims and ambiguous languageOne of the easiest ways to avoid being proven false is to not make any specific claims at all. Predictions in science are all about specificity and exactness. Operational definitions have to be clearly defined and shared; what you are measuring, how you will measure it and how you will determine if any results are significant are all hallmarks of good science. Pseudoscientific claims are never specific but rely on vague and ambiguous language, often encompassing grandiose claims." The bad spelling aside, doesn't it seem the tiniest bit suspicious to you that they set up their definitions of pseudoscience around creationism and anything conservative, with a definite and visible Left Wing bias? But anyhow, creationism makes few predictions because it refers to something that happened in the past. When guessing who's going to win a Presidential election you don't factor in something that happened in Ancient Rome, do you? And we don't use ambiguous language either. I'll say it plainly: we believe the Universe or at least the Planet Earth was created 6000 years ago by a Deity, which most Creationists believe to be the God of the Bible. That wasn't vague at all, if you ask me. "Lack of peer review, and claims of vast establishment conspiraciesDEFINITELY! Young Earth Creationists constantly claim that peer review is rigged and won't submit for peer review." Once again the spelling is atrocious. And we don't conceal the evidence. Anybody's allowed to read creationist papers. However, we don't submit our papers to the "peers" because guess who the "peers" are. You guessed it: hardcore evolutionists. And this is not just a claim. The only way it would be just a claim was if most scientists were not hardcore evolutionists who refuse to accept even the possibility of YEC. "Stasis, and hostility towards development or change of the ideaPseudoscience is embraced by its proponents with almost religious fervor. Since the idea can never be wrong, there is very little that needs to be changed or should be changed." Once again I can smell the bias on whoever defined pseudoscience, and just about every other buzzword liberals and evolutionists alike enjoy using. As a religious Book, of course the Bible cannot be altered! But as I've stated, the arguments used to defend Creationism can. Thus, Creationist arguments can change with new evidence. Anything can change except for the overall conclusion. If you think this is unscientific, many evolutionists (such as Richard Dawkins) do the same. Their arguments may change, but they will never accept the possibility of a God, especially not the Biblical God. I don't know whether you personally could accept the possibility of God or not, but many evolutionists won't. "One of the easiest ways to gain the trappings of science is to describe pseudoscience using the words of science, or terms that sound scientific." First of all, evolutionists do not have a monopoly on science. It's not like you guys bought the rights to science. Second, it's only pseudoscience because you guys say it's pseudoscience. Third, they are legitimate theories. The Rapid Decay Theory was a legitimate theory, at least for a time, if it isn't still. "Misrepresentation of termsThey frequently refer to macro-evolution as a completely different process than micro-evolution while in reality they are the same process." Atrocious grammar aside yet again, a dog can become another breed of dog, but a dog will never become a cat or a cow. "Poor standards of evidence In science evidence is valued when it is collected in a rigorous manner and is as divorced as possible from personal bias. pseudoscience promoters are only interested in evidence that confirms the initial idea. This confirmation bias means that any evidence that might contradict the theory is ignored." And you're saying all those anti-theist evolutionists like Dawkins have no personal bias? Ha! I'll move on to "Clear Political and Religious Motivation." "A huge red "pseudoscience flag" should go up when an idea is pushed against the backdrop of a strong agenda that has nothing to do with the idea being proposed at all. This is most easily seen with creationism and intelligent design where the "science" is an afterthought to the general battle between "evil materialism" and religion. This can often be seen when an individual suddenly starts promoting a pseudoscientific idea shortly after a major political or religious conversion, or a list of "supporters" of an idea are all unified in some sort of philosophy or religion." Yes, but Creationism and ID are not necessarily Christian, though about 90% of Creationists are. Anyhow, we'll admit that it is from a religious viewpoint. That doesn't make it wrong. P.S. The scientific consensus which you adore once thought that Jews were subhuman. Sources: A. Something I heard on the radio B. Some Wikipedia