"Creation Science" experiments.

You cannot "prove" anything is science. We build evidence to support a theory. The evidence may become overwhelmingly supportive of the theory, but the theory is never "proved", simply exceptionally well-supported. By working out what evidence such an event would leave, and then looking for that evidence. If Big Bang cosmology is true, then there should be a relic radiation permeating the Universe consisting of the first photons to fly free from the early dense ionised gases that ould have trapped photons. Thsi radiation should be black body in spectrum, and it should be very low temperature - just a few degrees Kelvin - owing to the expansion of the Universe since the photons escaped the dense gas.Guess what? We see the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, exactly as it should be if it is the hypothesised radiation from the time following the Big Bang. The CMBR is excellent evidence for the Big Bang comsology, despite the fact that these photons were emitted 13.6 billion years ago.Compared to the above, finding evidence for the creation event of the Universe that happened just 6000 years ago should be a piece of cake.Now, what evidence should we expect from this creation event?

Yes, essentially. Except that your emphasis has an implicit "this is all we can do", where-as this is actually (part of) the scientific method and is how *all* science is conducted. And with sufficient supporting evidence, your "lends credibility" becomes our "exceptionally well-supported".So you answered your own question, yes?

No, you are just talking to professionals and real scientists (possibly for the first time) and we are not (or try not to be) sloppy in the language we use as it inevitably leads to confusion and false ideas...

Hi Slev - concerning your list of PhDs, just have to ask this: how many PhDs do you think there are in the world that recognise that the earth is only several Ka in age, but do not profess a faith in an Abrahamic deity?

Ok, so I took a look down Slev's list looking for someone related to my own field. Not many theoretical physicists there, nor cosmologists, but I did find an astronomer/astrophysicist in Ron Samec, who is currently at Bob Jones University...Popping over to CreationWiki to find some of his articles (deliberately not hot-linking here), I find these:

quote:

---

creation.com/no-sign-of-gravitational-lensing-in-the-cosmic-microwave-background

---

Here, Ron picks up on a single paper: On the absence of gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background and uses it to claim:

quote:

---

This is a major blow to the big bang theory where the existence of the CMB is the main evidence for its occurrence...

​

...Thus the CMB may not be the ‘whimper’ of the big bang, but just a rather homogeneous but dirty expulsion of a nearby supernova.

---

Ok, I give him credit for his "may not be" uncertainty, but he is using his position as an astrophysicist to write the usual desperate "see, look how secular science is falling apart" article. Pathetic.Oh, sorry. How valid was the paper he referenced? You judge. Here's the relevant papers from the arxive

No, you are completely wrong about this. I can think of four separate concepts that are referred to by the word time, only one of which has anything to do with human "thought". I think you need to learn quite a bit more before you start making blanket proclamations like this. It helps prevent you look quite so stupid.

Now you're just wasting everyone's time. You don't know what you are talking about, so please quit trying to give everyone else a lesson in your own ignorance.