46% of Americans believe in Creationism

[Final-Fan]

allenmaher said:

Rushida said:

allenmaher said:

Rushida said:
At least have some respect for it. It's just as valid as any other "scientific" evolutionary theory. Atheists need to accept this.

No it is not. As a scientist with degrees in Biology and Earth Sciences, I a can unequivocly say beyond a shadow of a doubt that creationism has zero validity.  Evolution is fact, and one which we can observe at multiple levels, through the fossil record, through genomic evidence, and we can witness evolution happening here and now.  Why do you think there are so many strains of influenza out there.

Idiodic conjecture with zero supporting evidence does not constitute a valid or equivelent scientific theory.  A scientific theory is based on mountains of evidence, years of debate, and a ton of hard work.

Not all opinions are equal, some is based on expertise, reason, evidence, and logic, and other oppinions are just mad delusional ravings.  Speech is free, so you have the right to flout evidence,reason, and logic, but you get what you pay for.  There is no equivelency between the theory of evolution and creationism.

I don't care what degrees you have. What does that have to do with anything? There were people with degrees a long time ago who unequivocly said beyond a shadow of doubt that the Earth was flat. What now?

Creationism has just as much validity as evolution until scientist can prove that there was a lineage of ape to humans with tangible FACTS. And I don't mean with DNA or RNA or Genomes or none of this theoretical stuff prone to error. I mean I need them to use fossils to physically recreate every intermediate species in the supposed lineage of ape-to-human. Until scientists can do this, then everything they say is theoretical and should be reserved for philosophy rather than the natural sciences.

Advanced degrees relevant to the topic mean I am qulified to provide courtroom testimony as an expert witness on the subject.  You are an internet formun poster that is spouting nonsense.

Creationism has presented no tangible evidence.  Zero peer reviewed articles, no published data sets, no evidence of any kind.  They have produced a bunch of silly laughable propeganda that only a half wit would subscibe to.  When their evidence was presented in a court of law it was found not to be science by the courts (recently in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District).  You cling to the notion that the two are somehow equivelent by spouting more nonsense each time, there have been numerous intermediary species found between homo spaien and the nearest common ancestor with the other chimpanzees.  The link from human to ape is zero steps long, we are one of the species of apes, along with the two other chimpanzees the gorrilla.  You niether understand what constitutes science nor philosophy.  Natural scisnces are a branch of philosophy, one based on empirical methods and hard evidence. 

Please continue to rebut and show the vastnes of your ignorance as an object lesson.

I'd like to say a few words to each of you: 
allenmaher, I agree with you and respect you, but I'd respect you more if you could spell.  If you're drunk-posting or something, then never mind, I guess. 

Rushida, like I said, I agree with everything allenmaher said.  Additionally, I suspect you don't even know what you mean when you say "every intermediate species".  There have been many, many species found in between humans and what you think of as "apes" (even though we are still apes) as well as dead end species.  I suspect you would like scientists to have to dig up a skeleton for every single generation in between "hairy ape" and "Stone age man" but even you ought to know that is silly. 

Moving on, you need to understand that creationism is not even remotely in the same category as science.  Scientists don't have to "disprove" creationism, their job is to make theories and poke holes in theories and make better theories.   Creationism in the sense of "boom God waved his hand and animals were there" is not a theory, but it does invite questions like "then why do animals look like they are related to other animals and have vestigial limbs etc."  If creationists don't like it when scientists poke holes in creationism then they should stop pretending their beliefs are scientific theories.