Is creationism science? Science proves the accuracy of the Bible?

<< No, it is not MY own speculative assumption. It is the assumption of those scientists who make it. In fact, it is just that assumption that I have been arguing against. Or can't you read?

The question 'why' we do it is irrelevent. That is what we humans do, especially the scientific mind. Just because you can't prove it exists does not mean it does not exist. It is the daydream and the fantasy that makes us look. In your logic, we would quit looking for the extinct dinosaur fossils that we will never find just because we will never find them. We will quit looking for that planet out there just because we will never find it. You see, we don't KNOW we will never find it. That is why we look. If we only looked for that which we knew we would find, then the evidence for it's existence already exists. With your reasoning, in the process of not looking we will find no more planets, no more dinosaurs. We will quit looking. >>

I'm sorry sir. You're the one not reading. Science is a way to discover, to know natural laws-phenomena. Religion too often says God did it and there's nothing else to know, and those who want to know more defile God and his purpose. Such was the story of Galileo and many others. Apparently you prefer to look at one facet of science and draw conclusions from it. We are done.

Bullshit. I said 'The inability to prove a negative is refuge for *some* scientists akin to patriotism as refuge for the scoundrel. While many scientists tend not to believe what cannot be demonstrated or proved, many go a step too far and argue that because it cannot be demonstrated or proved it must *not* exist. Such is no less paradoxical than the scientist with deep faith in religion. It is just as illogical and un-scientific.' That stands for the very propostion that the 'must not exist' argument is NOT my own speculative assumption, rather it is clearly the specualtive assumption of those scientists who make it. Thus, it is clear no it's face that you failed to read my post and are incorrect when you told me: ' The 'must not exist' argument is your own speculative assumption, and as we all know, to assume makes an ass out of.......'

And where, prey tell, have I disputed this proposition? It is my position that too many scientists take a lack of evidence on any point and infer the negative (i.e. there is no evidence for X therefor, X cannot be). This defies logic.

And where, prey tell, have I disputed this proposition?

Apparently you prefer to make wild, invalid, illogical assumptions about other peoples positions (putting words in their key boards, as it were). Until you privide a logical answer to the two foregoing questions, then I might play the same game and say that apparently you prefer to look at one facet of religion and draw conclusions from it.

Speak for yourself.