Not that I feel that it really makes a difference to post this, but I've learned that most creationists are amazingly stubborn and take every chance of changing the facts a bit to fit their view or at least their interpretation of things is different because of their original view, that alone will make it hard to impossible to even change their view at all. Admitting or believing that creation has not happened the way the bible said, would mean the bible can't be used anymore as a solid 'evidence' or simply as the basis of their religion anymore. It would be flawed too much. Needless to say that I already strongly doubt the truth-value of a more literal interpretation of the texts. (Also remember, what's in the bible now, is a selection of texts, so it can't be original at all, let alone the influence of all the translations and reproductions. Just think about the different meanings certain Hebrew words supposedly can have and what kind of impact that can have on the meaning of the text. Especially when interpretating them literally.)

-Being critical and sceptical about established scientific views is very good, but when it interferes with your view, rather than with the facts, then holding on to your own view is pretty much a strange thing to do, when you ask me. That's something I've noticed, eventhough like I've explained above I think to know why this happens.

-Furthermore eventhough maybe not always, but they accuse evolutionists a lot of being 'unscientific, basing things off our imagination'. That's very amusing when you think about their creationist theory, the only real touchable indication you have is a text. No offense, but that's rather weak. We scientists would not get away with it, and yes you are right astrology is not as exact as one might think. We all know that and other sciences have there 'flaws'.
Btw, what exactly did we make up then? Estimations for example are usually thoughts about certain variables based upon reliable data mixed with some unreliable data, that's still better than just making some figures up and throw it all in a mixer.
Creationists tend to skip a lot of scientific explanations as having any chance at all of being true, simply because they are scientific, at least that's my impression, maybe not a fact, but still.
Junk dna for example is not unexplained, at least not from the scientific perspective, but maybe unexplained from the creationist's perspective was what was meant anyway.

-Arguments like 'the dating method is wrong' are signs to me that creationists either don't know much about them, or wouldn't believe them if they were correct and true anyway. Fallout is something you can meassure, any calculations with them do have a meaning, and the calculations themself will only become more and more accurate the more we get to know about it and the factors that influence it all. Eventhough no scientist likes to do it, we are infact open enough to admit errors. The ´assumptions´ you are questioning aren´t based on nothing, scientific theories require to be based on solid things. I´m not going to claim every theory to be 100% solid and proven. This isn´t even relevant in a way, like said in this thread before, theories can be falsified, not proven, but they can be made assumable with enough evidence to support the theory in question. As for your theory, where´s your proof and solid base?? Yes, so your theory isn't scientific, but it still requires more than just faith to be acceptable, let alone proven. And that's not just my opinion, but also pure common sense. Why believe in something when there is absolutely no evidence at all in favor of it?

As always, think of this what you like, that's your right off course. I would be interested to know 'the more exact details about the creation theory', I might be asking for the impossible, but I want to hear more than just 'God created it, and God works in mysterious ways' I guess. Sorry for that. I only believe apples can fall out of the sky if I a). can see them fall or b). it would make sense to conclude that an apple has infact fallen out of the sky, because of the position in for example the tree it was the day before and the location where is it now, being down on the floor.
The evolution theory is a b)-kind of option, because the a). is impossible or possibly impossible to witness.

Anyways, I'm enjoying this debate too and it's been great to read what other people think. But I do think that this debate will go on forever, only untill one of the theories gets falsified...

Cheers