Summations Only

Glad you pointed this out, Coyote. This is basically the cause of things getting so jumbled so often within the debate. Creationism relies on the existence of a Creator, and science cannot prove or disprove such things. Creationists get lost when we try to do that.As for me, I'm no scientist, though there are creationists who are. Instead, I choose to believe in a Creator. Sure we can point out observable things in the natural world to affirm our belief in a Creator, but at the end of the day, it's faith in a Creator that anchors me to Creation, not the other way around.Regards yall!- Raph

Haha. I'll let the scientists do the science debating. I won't pretend I'm knowledgeable enough to answer that question, don't think it's my role . Instead, I prefer to ask the bigger questions. Is it important? Does belief in something that cannot be proven using science require that I prove it using science? You did, yourself, say: This debate, in reality, starts at the wrong place. If scientists have to follow the evidence, and belief in a creator cannot be proven using evidence (the scientific method), I cannot give you what you want my friend.Hope I'm not too confusing! - Raph

Faith my friend, by your own admission you seem to be frustrated. You've fallen into the trap of many a Creationist: trying to prove Creation, and therefore a Creator, with science. I mean, if you think you have the knowledge required to argue such a thing against such "stacked" odds, go ahead haha.The reason debate here is impossible is because we fall into the trap of debating on the non-Creationists terms. Creationism is not the arguing of Origins using science and reason, it is the admonition that it all started with a Creator. You are exhausted and frustrated because you've been backed into a corner, trying to answer hard questions purely with knowledge. Instead, try starting with the bigger questions.Why do they require me to prove Creation, and therefore a Creator, using science when science cannot prove the supernatural?
Is science the standard for what is "real?"
If science is the standard, it cannot speak about the existence of a Creator, since it only covers what is observable.
If it is not, what is? Human reason? Logic? What your heart feels? The Constitution of the USA?Perhaps if you start there, you may be a little less frustrated my friend. Just trying to help! - Raph