Creationism is scientific

You've been a good opponent. I only hope you consider my arguments to be worthy of refuting. As stated before, my brain is not scientific. And thank you for changing your font. All right, let's do this thing. 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. Take a look at the Wikipedia article on "Flat Earth" and you'll find that the Ancient Jews, Egyptians, and Mesopotamian peoples thought that the Earth was a flat disc, as did the Greeks until the 6th century BC. The Chinese, a brilliant people, believed this as late as 1595, according to a Jesuit missionary named Matteo Ricci. The Wikipedia article on "Spherical Earth" says it started with the Greeks. And please don't give me poop about Wikipedia not being a reliable source. 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. Then, you said that space was considered flat. This is true, but I don't know if they believed in an expanding universe. 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. Then, you said "none of these "predictions" are anything special to the Hebrews. In addition all this proves is that people back then knew those things; it doesn't logically follow that Genesis is an accurate historical account of the formation of life and the universe. This is the fallacy of composition." 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. Next, you quoted somebody named William G. Dever, who made the claim that the Kingdom of Israel did not exist. Hmm...what a bold claim. Listen to these statements from an article of CBN: "In 1868, a stone tablet was discovered in Jordan. It was written by a Moabite king named Mesha, an enemy of Israel. The stone dates to around 840 BC, less than 200 years after David and it provides the first known reference to the "House of David" outside the Bible. "And 'House of David,' it means 'dynasty of David.' So we know that there was a guy called David, and he had a dynasty," Garfinkel said. "Okay, so now this is absolutely clear that David is not a mythological figure. So the mythological paradigm collapsed in one moment." More than a hundred years later the same phrase, "House of David," turned up on another stone, this time in northern Israel. It was written about 200 years after David's rule -- again, by one of Israel's enemies, Hazel, the king of Damascus. "He said, I killed 70 kings. I killed a king from Israel and a king from the House of David," Garfinkel explained. One of David's greatest victories took place in the valley of Elah. This is where the young shepherd boy killed the giant Goliath, and it's one of the few places where you can still catch a glimpse of the Israel that David knew. Nearby are the ruins of the Philistine city of Gath, the hometown of Goliath and the remains of the brook where David found the stone that killed him. And high above the valley is a fortress that's thousands of years old to the local Bedouin. This place is still known as "Khirbet Daoud" or "David's Ruin." It's the only iron age city in Israel that's perfectly preserved and almost frozen in time. "For us as archaeologists, this is one of the richest sites in Israel. This is like a biblical Pompeii," Garfinkel said. The Hebrew name is "Khirbet Qeiyafa" or "Fortress of Elah." Garfinkel first uncovered the city in 2007. He recovered some burnt olive pits from the site and sent them to Oxford University for carbon-dating. The results surprised even Garfinkel himself. "It turns out that this beautiful city and all the finds is from about 1020 to 980 BC, and this is exactly the time of King David," he said. In David's day, the Valley of Elah served as a neutral zone between the Israelites and the Philistines. In Qeiyafa, which was right on the frontlines, excavators discovered a large cache of weapons. "We are shedding some light on the story of David and Goliath. We are in the same location, in the same time the city is heavily fortified. We have all these weapons, so I'm telling you that this indeed was an area of conflict between two political units," Garfinkel said. In the Bible, this fortress is mentioned with a diferent name, Sha'Araym, "The city of two gates." In 1 Samuel 17, Sha'Araym is the place where the Philistines fled after David killed Goliath. "Sha'Arayim means in Hebrew "two gates." In KQ, we have two gates. So if you take the biblical tradition, the location, the chronology, the meaning of the name -- all these aspects fit Qeiyafa perfectly," Garfinkel said." Excuse the poor grammar. But my point is, King David did exist, and he did rule over the Kingdom of Israel. That must burn!! 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. Now we're moving out of the archaeological domain and into the scientific domain. I'll probably butcher this part, but maybe not. 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? Aw man, I'm running out of characters. I'll try to cover as many more as I can. "One of the most important criterion for a theory is that it MUST be consistent with ALL available evidence or else it's falsified. Unfortunately for Rapid Decay "Theory" it is inconsistent with evidence over a longer time scale." Yeah, well it hasn't been proven wrong yet. "Carbon Dating has been crosschecked thousands of times with tree rings and it has pased every test so creationists also have to deny tree ring dating which they don't deny. Also if there models were scientifically accurate they would've passed peer review. Not a single on has." 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. Next, you said that evolutionist scientists are not biased. Look, everybody has a bias. Just about every movie has an Aesop, left or right wing in nature. The News is definitely biased. Fox News and MSNBC are not the only examples of a biased media. The scientists, such as Richard Dawkins, are most definitely biased in some way or another. Richard Dawkins is notoriously biased and anti-theistic. He would never accept the existence of God. No matter what evidence you show him he will find a way around it. The peer reviews will always reject creationist papers. They will work around the clock to find some fault to pin on it. You said some stuff about logical fallacies and pseudoscience. 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. There it is. I finally posted my argument for Round 4. That Wikipedia wouldn't let me enter it until I clicked the button 40 times or so. Anyway, I await your response.