An essential part of a scientific theory is ...?

One has to wonder where the observable data was that led to the creationist hypothesis in the first place...

Also, science is the study of verifiable facts and provable theories, not by definition, but that is what it is at it's core. We can't verify that creationism is true, as it lacks evidence that can be seen, shown, or witnessed. ACTUAL evidence, you can't point at a a flower you don't understand and say "God did it." Also, you can't prove it happened, you can't prove it because you can't test it. How do you test creationism? But you can test evolution.

Lastly, I don't think you can apply the scientific method to creationism as it is a belief system rather a scientific theory. If creationists insist it is theory, then no meaningful conversatin can be had.

Polymerase chain reactions, applied to DNA for genetic replication, mutation, and/or manipulation, can and have created such chimeras. Just because you don't see bigfoot, doesn't mean he isn't there. If I plant a seed in a fertile garden, it will grow because the adjective describing the garden denotes such a property for said seed. The seed grows, blossoms, and blooms to be the most beautiful flower in all the land. I planted the seed. I created; therefore, I am creationist by nature. What, if nothing, cannot disprove it?

Ken Ham nailed this one during the debate:

"Nothing can disprove my god."

He is clearly one of the brilliant minds of the century, aiming to lead people into a perfect path, by showing his scientific proficiency. [/sarcasm]

Creation doesn't have to be falsifiable. As a scientific theory though, evolution has to be.

IF rational arguments worked on religious people there’d be no religious people. (House)

~

It is just that - a theory! :D