[fabian]

you don't know the actual numbers of creation scientists who see the falicy of toe so your numbers don't mean much. And yes, those many bright scientists have much more than qualms...they are actively exposing the holes in toe. The way you write about other scientists who are not going along with toe shows a kind of predjudice you have that's weird. I hope you will be a bit more fair minded and not so haughty.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"you don't know the actual numbers of creation scientists who see the falicy of toe so your numbers don't mean much."

Their numbers are exceedingly small. The moniker *creation scientist* is an oxymoron. They may have done real work at one point in a real science, but they do not do science when they don the hat of *creation scientist*. Creation *science* is a branch of theology.

"And yes, those many bright scientists have much more than qualms...they are actively exposing the holes in toe."

Their concerns are theological in nature, not scientific. The entire *controversy* is theological, not scientific.

[King Prout]

"creation scientists" do not use a scientific method and do not conduct scientific research when acting as "creation scientists"

"creation science" has as its principal axiom the inerrancy of Scripture in its literal text. A corollary of this is the requirement to fit all observations of reality into that axiomatic viewpoint.

This is called "starting from a conclusion"

This is theology, or philosophy (at best). It is not science. Indeed, it is anti-science.

Such rubbish leads to the production of static and erroneous Bestiaries, rather than accurate observations of nature.

[King Prout]

and, AGAIN, I note that you have not yet attempted to address the three specific question I posed to you several days ago, despite numerous reminders.

refusal to address pointed questions relating to your axiomatic assertions does not augur well for your claims of good faith and honesty, fabian.