Kinda sad to see that the anti-religious community has grown slightly over the past few decades. I guess atheist propaganda is working, to an extent. I'm not too worried though because the honest humans know the truth.

Also disappointed with the hypocritical and downright rude comments in this thread. Atheists like to fixate on proof, but can they prove creationism is wrong? No, they cannot. I don't have a problem with that, but it's very disturbing to see people insulting the theory as if it were proven wrong, when it's not.

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

What do you mean the problem? And what do you mean "poorly" educated?

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.

It's clearly an issue when the general public (laymen) are telling the experts they are wrong.

Do you tell your doctor (s)he's wrong?

Do you tell your dentist (s)he's wrong?

Do you tell your veterinarian (s)he's wrong?

Do you tell your mechanic (s)he's wrong?

Do you tell your financial advisor (s)he's wrong?

Just a couple of extremely obvious questions which should convey to you why your position is totally and completely ridiculous. Creation isn't science, it's a religious theory based upon nothing.

Your argument is fundamentally fallacious on several levels.

Firstly, these experts you listed are experts in the natural world of what's happening currently (or the recordable past). For example, a mechanic is trustworthy because he and his peers were able to get hands-on interaction with cars do determine how the function most efficiently. The entities in which they study can be studied today in all their glory. Whereas an evolutionary "scientist" finds some bones in the dirt and says, "must be ancestors to humans." Ridiculous, as if they couldn't just be artificial bones our ancestors created for fun. What a load BS.

Secondly, these "experts" you listed were wrong many times. Doctors of the 1800s were not as smarts as doctors today, etc. The reason they are so knowledgeable today is because they've had centuries to refine and improve their profession. They can do this by testing new techniques and seeing if they work. Thus, they can give themselves concrete proof about if their theories work in practise. Whereas a evolutionary "scientists" can never effectively test his theories. They are all just unsupported theories with the only evidence being, "Well it may have happened. I dunno lol. These bones look like human bones. Must be ancestor to human" You cannot prove what happened before humans could recorded history so it's all conjecture.

Btw, if a doctor seemed to want to diagnose a child with ADHD, I would be inclined to call him out on it. I've did it a few times actually. 

Thirdly, I don't have a pet so why would I have a veterinarian? Your lack of logic astounds me.

Fourthly, The implication that a person should never challenge an authority by virtue of the fact that the person is an authority is fundamentally nonsensical. I hope you have a mind that is more free than the propoganda you preach here. I for one welcome asking questions for a quest to knowledge, rather than blind submission. 

Good day

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.

You didn't list any fallacies, just repeatedly claimed I used them. Sorry sport, that isn't how things work.

Alright it's clear you're totally ignorant on the topic. Fossils are totally unnecessary to the theory of evolution. We don't even need them to establish sufficiently that it occurred. It's also laughable that you suggest the entire collection of fossils is fake. 

Evolutionary biologists can test their theories. Any new fossils found are an opportunity to test them. If any fossil is found from the wrong era, that would really put a substantial dagger in evolutionary theory. Furthmore, artificial selection is principled from natural selection (an evolutionary construct) for crops and breeding of animals. 

Yes, because you know better than the doctor about ADHD right? You called them out based upon total ignorance. 

I never said you had a pet. I never made any claims, I asked questions. Maybe understand the difference, okay?

I never said not to challenge authority, I said the authority is in a better position than laymen to form judgements because they have credibility on such topics. 

Your position seems to be that you know everything. Hilarious stuff.

DNA isn't theory. Wow. 

We're lucky to have fossils at all, let alone a complete set of intermediates. If you want a GOOD collection, learn about anthropology. We have a dozen hominid fossils that you can even go see at a museum. 

Speaking from ignorance is really quite foolish. 

I can't believe you are still arguing. Man, you are so stuck on this Evolution vs. Creationism thing when I wasn't arguing about that originally. You imposed the fundamental creationist argument on me. You are just completely stuck on your forgone conclusion that you aren't reading carefully. I said random in a way. Yes, you can replicate in a lab many things that happen in nature individually. However, nature is a system of things that impact each other. We only obtain scientific results when we know all the variables. That's why we can only predict weather on a semiaccurate level only a week in advance excluding things like tropical storms. Even with tropical storms, there are many speculative paths that do not get narrower down until hours before it hits the place. Yes, nature has general patterns but in the real world, they are not sticking to patterns 100%

I could just copy my same response, that's how bad your argument is.

Random doesn't mean we don't have all the variables, it means random. Not having all variables != random. Random means, even with all the variables we cannot come to a definitive conclusion.

The only argument for randomness in nature is quantum physics and it may or may not be the case since it's not well understood, nor does it apply to macro-level where classical physics is still king. 

Imprecise weather models are not a product of randomness, they are a product of incomplete models.