Too bad that actual science is more supportive of creationism than Darwinist dogma. Ask me how.

Actually, Pat, it's not.

I have no problems with people who want to believe that a supreme being snapped his fingers and created the universe 11-15 billion years ago. It's as good an explanation of the big bang as any. But treating the Bible as a literal interpretation of facts has no place in science, period.

If creationism can stand on its own scientific merit, then why have all of the efforts to suppress the teaching of evolution been focused on stressing that it is "Darwinist Dogma", a theory without incontrovertible proof? Scientists are nothing if not fact centered. If you have 2 competing theories, typically the one with more objective evidence and support will win the day. If you want to convert me to creationism, then show me the hard facts to support your stance. Don't spend all of your time looking for flaws in evolutionary theory, and reach the conclusion that since Darwinism is flawed, creationism is valid. Sure evolution is a "theory", but it is one that is overwhelmingly supported by the facts.

Are there still kinks to be worked out? Sure there are. We still don't know what the Hubble constant really is, so we have difficulty setting an exact age on the universe. But there is no way we will someday wake up and declare that the universe is only 4-5,000 years old.

And if the argument is "He's God, he can do whatever he wants" well, that's sort of a tough one to defend against. I hang out on a lot of astronomy/cosmologic BB. And they are constantly being beseiged by creationists who want to show us the error of our ways. So far, I never seen an argument that can't be pretty easily refuted. These discussions always end up with the aforementioned "omnipotent God" trump card, or with declarations of faith in a supreme. Faith and a quarter still won't buy you a cup of coffee in a scientific debate.