Creationism is scientific

You started out by saying that a spherical earth was common knowledge in Bible times. I don't appreciate you starting out with an outright lie. I just did and it turned out I was wrong. As for the Earth hanging on nothing, the Greeks thought the Earth floated in the water. The people of India thought the Earth was held up by elephants, and the Native Americans believed in a world turtle. Almost nobody at that time believed that the Earth literally hung on nothing. It appears I was wrong here too. Then, you said "It shouldn't take long for people in a tribe to realize that keeping certain sick people near them makes others sick. This is not anything special either. " You would think so, but it took a while for the Medieval Europeans to figure this out during the Black Death. Just keep in mind that nobody knew about germs back then. Back then everybody thought that angry spirits caused illnesses. Well if we're talking about the dark ages that's not much of a surprise since a lot of knowledge had been lost. Actually, if other civilizations didn't know this stuff, why would the Bible? At least there were some genius scientists assisting its creation, but I doubt this. A similar question would be "if other civilizations didn't know how to make underwater concrete, why would the Romans? Ancient cultures are constantly surprising us with their knowledge; one example would be the antikythera mechanism which had gears 1500 years too early. There is still no reason to think that it was God who gave them these ideas. Next, you quoted somebody named William G. Dever, who made the claim that the Kingdom of Israel did not exist. I can't find that claim in the William G. Dever quote I gave. Then you mentioned something from a guy named Ze'ev Herzog. Well, not that the exerpt from the above article didn't clear this up, but according to Wikipedia, his latest work is from 2004, All his other works are from the 1980s and 1990s. As for God "having a wife," even if this were true, it would've been an example of Israeli idolatry, not the original religion of the Bible. The age doesn't matter since it hasn't been disproved what he said. Next you provided a link to an article concerning the flatfish. But how do you know this isn't simply another breed of flatfish? I'd hardly call it a transitional fossil. Your second source was much better. But how do you know that all that stuff are transitional fossils? Like before, they could just be extinct breeds of various animals. And if all that stuff are actually transitional forms, why don't evolutionists flaunt it like they flaunt the fossil record and tree rings and the ice cores? This isn't relevant to this debate so I won't say anything more about this than this: we know because they exhibit traits form both their ancestral group and descendant group. Wow, what a claim. But here's the thing: light has actually been slowed down by scientists to less than 100 MPH. Therefore, light having been a different speed in the past is very possible. So carbon dating too could change with time, methinks. Yes they have slowed light down that much but it wasn't in a vacuum where it is supposed to be constant so that doesn't make it any more likely. Radioactive decay on the otherhand doesn't change in any known condition. Next, you said that evolutionist scientists are not biased. Look, everybody has a bias. That is not what I was saying. I was saying that pseudoscience promoters ONLY care about evidence that supports their claims. Finally, you said that my Post Scriptum was an "appeal to emotion. " I wasn't trying to demonize scientists. I'm simply saying you cannot always trust the scientific community's conclusions as fact, especially when they have a bias. And many of those scientists have an anti-creationist bias. Yes many scientists do, but the very nature of science requires naturalistic explanations (unless they can prove that it was supernatural empirically. ) Also tht anti-creationist bias makes their results more likely to be accurate because they are not simply looking for evidence to affirm their unfalsifiable, unwarranted beliefs. CONCLUSIONCon has admitted that Creationism is not a scientific theory and tried to show how it adhered to the methods of science. I was able to show that it was actually a pseudoscience.