Any discoveries this week in creation science?

''Creation science,'' LMFAO.

Conceivably it could - in some other alternate dimension. But there it would have to do the same thing other sciences have done -

Present an ideas as a hypothesis - offer a test that will provide evidence.

When evidence is found, it becomes a theory.

It won't.There is no such thing as 'creation science'. It is the opposite of science and nothing more than superstitious BS.

Since creation science is mostly concerned with the ancient past, it doesn't often lend itself to "discoveries" like for example those related to testing tropical plants for possible anti-cancer drug applications.

Instead, what usually happens is that mainstream scientists accidentally make the discoveries. For instance, it was Dr. Mary Schweitzer who discovered that dino fossils have soft tissue in them, just like mammoth and giant slot fossils do, thus supporting the creation model that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time.

Creation scientists have C14 tested that soft tissue and of course the dates confirm that dinosaurs and man lived at the same time, just as the creation model predicts. However, any observable scientific evidence that could possibly put a damper on the theory of evolution is immediately dismissed as suspect by mainstream scientists, and understandably so, since they have a history of ridiculing, pillorying and even firing any fellow scientists who say or do anything that might even hint at problems with evolutionism. Creation scientists are not fettered by such threats when they perform such experiments, thus are not afraid to perform the relatively cheap $250 tests whereas mainstream scientists are scare out of their lab coats to even think about doing similar tests.

One of the more recent evidences to support the Biblical model comes from the renowned journal “Science”.

First the money quote: “The maximum-likelihood time for accelerated growth was 5,115 years ago” (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6090/64.full...

In a nutshell, what that seemingly insignificant statement is saying is that after doing numerous studies on human DNA, scientists have determined that the data shows that at 5,115 years ago or less, all of a sudden human DNA started varying like gangbusters. Now what would explain that?

According to athee-evos, humans have been around for about 200,000 years. That would mean that for about 195,000 years basically everyone was almost a clone of one another, like an identical twin, and then all of a sudden by magic, they started looking different like what we have today. Huh? Of course, there is absolutely no evidence for such a claim.

In contrast, the observable scientific evidence shows massive flooding worldwide quickly burying billions of things which then fossilized. If about 4,500 years ago, those massive floods wiped out all of mankind except for a few people, that would explain the variation in DNA starting at about that point. And if one of those survivors was 600 years old when such a flood began, that would mean the variation started at about 5,100 years ago. Well, what a “coincidence”!

Who said Christians don’t like science? We LOVE it.

They almost had one . . . .

. . . but the croc-o-duck ate it.

Creation science will be respected as real science just as soon as they have any credible evidence for their claims.

So, never.

I am hoping they will soon discover that they aren't scientists after all.

But they don't have enough science to figure that out.

They will have all the respect and more as soon as they can prove hell is frozen solidly over.

Should be easy for ones as astute as they.

It will be respected as science when it succeeds in demonstrating the scientific method. Simple.

If there were, they have kept it under wraps.

It will be as respected, if it ever becomes science of any kind.

I'm expecting an imminent publication on the lack of digestible properties of the wax crayon.

When it is actually a science....