Creationism is scientific

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."That was common knowledge back then and now. 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." Space was considered flat back then; this is not anything special.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. 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.Today we quarantine people with transmittable deadly illnesses. So, I think it accomplishes this first one pretty well.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.Therefore, since the Bible is supported by both science and history, it's fair to say that the Bible meets this second criteria.How abou we take a look at these quotes: "There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. What we do know of Israel and Judah of the tenth century does not allow us to interpret this lack of evidence as a gap in our knowledge and information about the past, a result merely of the accidental nature of archeology. There is neither room nor context, no artifact or archive that points to such historical realities in Palestine's tenth century. One cannot speak historically of a state without a population. Nor can one speak of a capital without a town. Stories are not enough."--Thomas L. Thompson; a leading biblical archaeological scholar.AND"Archaeology certainly doesn't prove literal readings of the Bible...It calls them into question, and that's what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so."[27] From the beginnings of what we call biblical archaeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archaeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archaeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archaeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.[28] Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence...--William G. Dever; a leading biblical archaeologist.AND Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog: "This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai."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.While transitional fossils aren't relevant to this debate here's some evidence for them (NOTE: this is only one out of many examples):http://news.nationalgeographic.com...This lists more: http://www.talkorigins.org...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.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.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.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.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?No. But anyhow, creationism makes few predictions because it refers to something that happened in the past. In science predictions can also refer to EFFECTS of the event/phenomenon. What effects does it predict we should find if creation occurred?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.Hence you just proved it qualifies for lack of peer review and claims of vast conspiracies. It doesn't matter who your peers are; if you used sound methodology and proper procedures then it will get past peer review.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.These aren't biased criteria. Arguments changing doesn't count as being able to change for new evidence. It's the theory that must be able to change; not the arguments. You've just proved this criterion.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.Yes they will.......When they are presented with evidence.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.No; it's pseudoscience because it doesn't adhere to a valid scientific method among other criteria. The criteria for pseudoscience were based off of science.Atrocious grammar aside yet again, a dog can become another breed of dog, but a dog will never become a cat or a cow.You're right a dog will never become a cat or cow. However their usage of macro-evolution and micro-evolution are misrepresenting the terms. And you're saying all those anti-theist evolutionists like Dawkins have no personal bias? Ha!That's where peer review and repetition comes in. 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.It doesn't prove it wrong but it does show that there is likely to be a lot of bias.P.S. The scientific consensus which you adore once thought that Jews were subhuman.That is irrelevant and an appeal to emotion fallacy.CONCLUSIONI proved that creationism does not meet the criteria for a scientific theory. I showed the bible's historical inaccuracy. Finally most of con's arguments against it being pseudoscience actually support that conclusion, and the ones that didn't support my conclusion I succesfully refuted.SOURCEShttp://news.nationalgeographic.com...http://www.talkorigins.org...