For all the creationists out there

The problem is, as soon as you separate ID from its religious agenda, it becomes just a series of refuted theories that should have already abandoned by now... except that they're kept alive in a zombified state by, you guessed it, religious reasons.

bestofmoneyonline I'm glad that you said ID is a scientific hypothesis, though even calling it that is somewhat questionable. Please see the following link for definitions. http://wilstar.com/theories.htm "Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation." Unfortunately, ID has made no scietific observations, so even calling it a hypothesis is somewhat of a misnomer. Secondly, you made the claim that the ID hypothesis refutes the evolutionary theory. Lets get one thing straight now. Science doesn't make hypothesis' or theories to refute other theories. The only way a theory can be refuted is by presenting a theory that gives us more accurate predictions than the current theory. What predictions does ID make? How accurate are said predictions? Can ID as a theory be falsified? All "scientific theories" must answer the above questions.

Thank you all for your answers. I know that probably I will not get any scientific evidence, but I am sick of people calling creationism scientific, so I am here, waiting their "evidences".

Imagine if we had a completed science, a theory of everything. Still we such questions as why something rather than nothing would remain. Science describes the world but doesn't really answer the 'Why' questions Islam used to be at the forefront of science and discovery but something happened. That great scholar Ibn Rushd, I believe, used the argument you outline in 2. regarding the duty of Muslims to look around at the world and understand it but Muslim courts found against him. (That might not be an entirely accurate portrayal of events, but certainly something changed the culture and the Muslim world stopped its progress.) all the best urban

3) Yes and no. We have no way to prove the Big Bang happened, nor that God exists. A small nitpick, but should be mentioned in any case. Evidence for the big bang is plentiful and there are countless observations to support the evidence. What we can't prove is how the big bang started, or came to be in the first place. We do know that it did happen, and can explain every step of the way up to the present, except for the initial phase that started it all. Big bang theory does not claim to know how the initial phase happened. "4) There are countless different theories on Big Bang, but again, its impossible to prove them." Sorry, but there is only a single theory called the big bang, though there have been numerious competing theories that have since been dismissed. Remember, scientific theories are based on what we know, not what we don't know.

I have no problem with that, and see no reason why science and religion can't co-exist. So long at those who are religious understand the difference between science and religion, I'll remain happy. When people start making assumptions about science being the antichrist (not you), or something similar, it's time to start educating people. Science isn't out to attack religion, and I'm glad that you understand that.

And did I said that evolution is a perfect theory? No. It changed from the past, will change and become better in the future, can even be totally replaced by a new and better theory. Scientific Theory.

If you believe the theory could be replaced by a scientific theory then why should people be expected to embrace the current one and even compromise their creationists beliefs?

If you believe the theory could be replaced by a scientific theory then why should people be expected to embrace the current one and even compromise their creationists beliefs? Are you idiot? Science works this way. Theories get better or are entirely replaced by newer and better theories. It is science!. Why I , using your words, embrace it? Because it is the better explanation we have. Without evolution, biology makes no sense. It is possible that it is substituted by Theory X in the future, yes. And what is the problem? I am not a religious and dogmatic man that must follow an absolute truth. World change, life changes, truths become better.

Yes. It means that I tried to see any kind of value in that text. I just failed to find any, simply because there *isn't* any. But at least I tried. How many feeble-minded creationists have tried to even understand the concept of evolution?

Trying to find value is subjective. Failing to comprehend is not.

The fact that it took you half-an-hour to read one whole long page speaks for itself.

Yeah good thread, only all his questions were asked and responded to before he started it.

A popular parctice among many proponents of evolutionism - including the "regulars" at the Talk origins newgroup - is to claim that "no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creatiion ... [see link below] http://www.trueorigin.or/cretheory.asp

Correction on the above site http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

Creationists for me are people that believe that every live being on earth was created by an act of will of some god. How the universe come to be is a interesting question, not related with life on earth, directly. The fact that some evolutionists want to disprove god´s existence DOES not have one thing to do with the theory being the best explanation for life. I would recommend you to read a little more about it. It is a fascinanting field. And evolution is a fact (as comproved by genetics and fossil records). How we explain it is what the Theory of Evolution proposes to do. And does.