You continually claim that creationism is science. I'm explaining to you what a scientific test is. You can test in whatever ways you like but there are certain standards that need to be met if you want to call the test scientific. For example, saying you found human and dinosaur tracks concurrently, not publishing the finding in any scientific journal, and ignoring specialists who have examined the evidence and said that you are wrong about what it shows, is not scientific. So is claiming that PhDs from diploma mills give you scientific credibility.


I've talked with Russ earlier about prophecies. There are all kinds of ways you can claim prophecies to be true after the fact, and prophecies which don't actually come true can be ignored. You can also usually shoehorn the words of a prophecy into whatever after-the-fact event you want. What's more, the fact that the Bible contains some historical accuracies is not in question. There really was a Bethlehem. The Romans really were there. However, you seem to think that this also validates the more mystical claims contained therein. So where's the archaeological evidence for the 6-day creation? How can you actually prove that Jesus was the son of God and that he rose from the dead? If you want to believe this it's your choice, but the belief exists outside of the bounds of testable science.


I never said this, and what I've said above will hopefully make the point clear.


I explained to you that the "evidence" he's presented has been scrutinised by experts and found not to be what he claims it is. I've also explained why his "evidence" should be suspect in the first place. I was hoping you'd give me an example of a real scientific test for creationism being conducted by someone with real scientific qualifications, but I understand that this is probably a tall order.


The way science should be conducted, as I've explained, is to approach research with open-minded skepticism. You should be willing to learn from your results and accept when your ideas appear to be wrong. This is admittedly difficult to do -- some scientists themselves could do with a lesson here -- but it's necessary in order to arrive at the truth. Believing that something has to be true, and shoehorning all the evidence to fit that belief, is not scientific. If I'm still not getting the point across then I don't know what else I can say. Preconceived beliefs are just not compatible with scientific investigation. Besides, why investigate if you think you are already so certain of what the answer is?


Let's make this clear: when you say the Bible is "true," you mean "literally true," don't you. There's abundant evidence that it isn't literally true, which would appear to be why so few people persist with this belief. But if scientific evidence emerges that the world really was created in 6 days, of course people will have to change their ideas. Can you produce the evidence?