[RobRoy]

>>I am still waiting for you to name a single technical achievement of a modern creation scientist that contradicts mainstream theory, say in the last 30 years. It should be really easy for you to produce.<<

Maybe it would be, if I tried. You value the "man made rules" far too much. Science can discipline itself all it wants. It doesn't mean that someone cannot say, in a science course, that "Gee, evolution theory has more holes in it than swiss cheeze and, barring any NEW evidence, ID hasn't been DISPROVED yet, so we will, at the very least, entertain it's possibility."

That would at least be intellectually honest.

[Thatcherite]

The challenge was made to bondserv, but your failure to meet it is noted too.

How can anyone take creation science seriously? It boasts of no achievements, makes no successful predictions, does not publish in any scientific journals. What a track-record. Most of its output it easily refuted nonsense on websites and in tracts for the devout.

[WildTurkey]

ID hasn't been DISPROVED yet, so we will, at the very least, entertain it's possibility."

That would at least be intellectually honest.

It hasn't been disproved that aliens arrived from outer space. Are you intellectually honest and want that taught, also?

[Dimensio]

"Gee, evolution theory has more holes in it than swiss cheeze

It does? Perhaps you can identify one of these holes rather than just asserting their existence.

and, barring any NEW evidence, ID hasn't been DISPROVED yet, so we will, at the very least, entertain it's possibility."

Hypothetically, how could ID be disproved?

[metacognative]

google up "radiohalos".