Comment: Fascinating definition

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Thanks for validating my argument (see in situ)

Fascinating definition

You just implied that "Creation Science" involves the Earth being created six thousand years ago without supernatural intervention. I would love to hear your explanation of this event using known laws of physics.

I want to make it clear that I think it's great that Kent Hovind and others dig up challenges to the conventional Evolutionary timeline.

It's not my intention to challenge your claims about fossil X appearing in place Y or what not, I'm sure our resident geologists and paleontologists would have more to say about that. I will say that I am skeptical of your claim of "zero" probability, and I will reiterate my original point that the job of Science is to generate hypotheses that best fit observable data and not to fall back on miracles. There is no young-Earth theory that does not rely, and rely heavily, on miracles, therefore there is no "Creation Science".