>>>>I thought it was a dogma.
>>>
>>>Only if you're closed minded. ;)
>>
>>While "dogma" might not be the most accurate term, the Creationist Theories are based more on "the Bible said so" reasoning than on any solid evidence. Therefore, I would consider it more religious than scientific.
>
>Again. Only if they're closed minded.
>
>They must have a good scientific arguement. And there are many who do. You just got to find them.

Since I have no idea where to start from, and you sound like a proponent of the idea that creationism needs to have equal chances, probably you would be the right person to point me to a place where I can find compelling evidence to convince myself that creationism is a viable theory.

Since the requirement of repeatability is off the table already (while evolution still shows it's working here and there), I'd really like to see how would one prove the other scientific requirements... and I really don't think that "you have to believe" has anything to do with science. The whole point of scientific approach is that "you don't have to believe in gravity, it works even if you believe it doesn't".