You think it takes a "leap of faith" to postulate that beyond the Kuiper belt, there might be some more debris left over from the formation of the solar system? Is this another example of the "I am incredulous so I will investigate this no further" philosophy? We won't find anything in the Oort cloud if we don't look, will we. Besides, I still don't see how this has any bearing on the fossil record.



So decades of quantum physics, which must by necessity use relativistic terms instead of Newtonian ones, are nothing but biased, indirect tests? I repeat, learn something about what you are criticising before you criticise it. Give me an example of the sort of false test you cited above.

I can't see atoms either. No physical test I could do myself would prove that atoms exist. Or their constituents, such as quarks. If we all relied on nothing but our 5 senses and what "common" sense tells us, we would be missing out on a lot of discoveries, and we'd also be getting a lot of things wrong.



How do you "rigorously test" for a 6-day creation? How do you "rigorously test" that manna fell from heaven? Please give me an example of one of these rigorous tests. It needs to be scientific, i.e. based on empirical evidence, which the Bible itself is not. It is a religious book.



I asked you a question, which you are evading: How do you test for a 6-day creation?



I don't think I'm going to convince you of anything; I think you will carry on trying to convince people that of Pandas and People really is a scientific book, even though you haven't read it, and despite everything I've said here about it. Your claims of "circular reasoning" appear to be a stock phrase used when evading an issue. Henry Morris' "wedge" comments don't make the point? Then maybe Phillip Johnson, another creationist, does. He defines creationism as "not simply biblical fundamentalism, but any invocation of a creative intelligence or purpose outside the natural order." Here is a well-known creationist defining creationism in terms that include ID. You can contradict these things all you like but I'm not sure who you think is being fooled.

Carl Baugh is in charge of the Creation Evidence Museum. His "scientific" credentials are about as valid in the scientific community as Kent Hovind's. Anyone can claim they've found stuff and if they have enough money, put it in a museum. How is the validity of those finds established? Through publication in scientific peer-reviewed journals, a process in which Baugh does not engage. Scientists have scrutinised Baugh's claims and have quite clearly shown them to be false, possibly even fabricated in some cases. Even AiG has discredited him, as you can read here. If you'd like to present the actual details of one of his finds here, we can discuss that.

I still don't understand why you think a passage from the Bible is scientific proof of anything. I could tell you that the Bhagavad Gita is literally true too. Why? Because I said so. Look, thus it is written. I think you know what I mean by empirical science and I think you're having a giggle with this.



Why is it a philosophical game to say that belief should be excluded from science? You look at the evidence and follow where it seems to lead. You test hypotheses. You never set anything in stone because new evidence might emerge in the future to overturn current ideas. This is how the scientific method works. Does anyone try to eliminate bias where the Bible is involved? Does anyone say, "I'm going to leave room for doubt because new evidence might come to light which disproves it?" Of course not, and these are some fundamental reasons why creationism is not scientific.