Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Evolution has not yet been proven. That is why it is a theory. A when a theory is proven it becomes a fact. A theory only needs to be proven wrong, and there are MANY facts that prove it is the correct way of thinking so it accepted as such in the scientific community. If its good enough for the scientists throughout the generations using it, it is good enough for everyone else also, esp. K-12. Who are these well known scientist who believe in creationism and can you provide proof that they believe it? If they are well known as you say this shouldn't be a difficult thing to provide me.
the global warming scientific coooks, were cooking the books to prove that the earth was warming.why should I believe the scientific evolutionist are not doing the same.evolution studies can be alterd to produce an outcome that they want. they are very good at that you know
Sorry, but that has been a settled issue for going on 150 years.
Please go up thread for the scientific definition of theory, so that in the future you won't make the same etymological mistake that you and others seem determined to make.
Just so you know, I'm the one arguing for evolution and not creationism. I've always been taught or thought a theory was something heavily fortified with facts, and there for largely accepted by the scientific community.
the global warming scientific coooks, were cooking the books to prove that the earth was warming.why should I believe the scientific evolutionist are not doing the same.evolution studies can be alterd to produce an outcome that they want. they are very good at that you know
Global warming isn't a theory yet, because it isn't supported by enough irrefutable facts, and it isn't excepted by the majority of the scientific community. Evolution is. I am still waiting for your list of well known scientists who believe creationism is the way it all came to be.
Just so you know, I'm the one arguing for evolution and not creationism. I've always been taught or thought a theory was something heavily fortified with facts, and there for largely accepted by the scientific community, but not exactly a law because it is/would still be open to modification because we still learn more about evolution? I don't know I could be wrong.
The first part of your comment would give the opposite impression while the latter portion seemed to make that clear. Perhaps an edit for clarity of your above comment might be in order.
the global warming scientific coooks, were cooking the books to prove that the earth was warming.why should I believe the scientific evolutionist are not doing the same.evolution studies can be alterd to produce an outcome that they want. they are very good at that you know
Creationism definitely isn't a fact. Nor is it a theory. A theory is something that is widely excepted by the scientific community because it is supported heavily by facts, creationism isn't supported heavily by facts. They can be informed by their parents, and it can be brought up in a world history class but not a science class for reasons I have previously stated in this thread.
Creationism is a fact, you are choosing to not believe it. It is supported by the facts in the Bible, which is divinely inspired.
On another note, if you really want to get into it, a scientific theory is one that can be DISproved, not necessarily that it is widely accepted by the scientific community and heavily supported by facts. Obviously, we cannot disprove the existence of God, so you're correct in saying that it's not an actual theory. However, it is widely accepted by most Americans as fact, and there's something to say about that.
Creationism is a fact, you are choosing to not believe it. It is supported by the facts in the Bible, which is divinely inspired.
On another note, if you really want to get into it, a scientific theory is one that can be DISproved, not necessarily that it is widely accepted by the scientific community and heavily supported by facts. Obviously, we cannot disprove the existence of God, so you're correct in saying that it's not an actual theory. However, it is widely accepted by most Americans as fact, and there's something to say about that.
Sounds like the argument the church used against Galileo when he proposed that the earth revolved around the sun instead of the other way around as stated in the bible.
If the authors of the biblical creation story knew what we scientifically know now, I bet they would have written the story differently. It is obvious that the creation story was written by someone with primitive knowledge.
until scientist can reproduce evolution I will not acept it as a fact but mearly a theory just like creationism and there is where we are teach both as theories not as facts
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who are these well known scientist who believe in creationism and can you provide proof that they believe it? If they are well known as you say this shouldn't be a difficult thing to provide me.
