Quote:

In creationism you begin with a fixed "theory" and then need to interpret the observations until they fit the theory. In science it's vice versa, you begin with observations and then develop a theory that fits the observations.



You mean, like when a fossil is found and dated? What I mean here is this: they find a fossil and date it based on the strata it is found in. The scientist then places an approximate date on the fossil based on this information. Then the fossil is sent to a lab to be more "accurately" dated. Many tests are done to determine the date. If the fossil was stated to have been 20,000 years old and carbon dating says it is only 1,000 then another method is tried. If that dating method states it is some other date than the one the original scientist placed on the fossil (based on the strata it was found in) then the next test is done and the next until, finally, one of the tests comes within the ballpark of the original scientit's date.

This is done "scientifically" because of a "fixed theory" and observations (as shown above) are interpreted until they fit the theory. In fact, the dating of fossils is very strange. As indicated, the initial date of a fossil is based on the geologica layer (strata) in which they are found. Yet the dating of these strata is based on the fossil record. This is circular reasoning. You date a fossil based on the strata which, itself, is dated based on the fossil record.

Creationism is not trying to force observations to fit a theory. Like any other since, "creationism" is an idea. The science is to test the idea and see if the observations bear the idea witness ... the same thing the evolutionist are to be doing.

Professional 2D, 3D and Real-Time 3D Content Creation:
HyperGraph Studios