Andrew Cummins discussing "Creationism"
with Richard Meic...
 RM>> 1) Creationism is often claimed to be a science.  When no science is 
 RM>> actually done.  (ie. observe, hypothesize, try to disprove through 
 RM>> experiment).  Thus, creationism is not a science, a popular idea many
 RM>> people like to think is truth, but is in no way substantiated by the 
 RM>> scientific method.  NOTE: there is no way to actually prove or 
 RM>> disprove creationism (the idea that everything was created by a god),
 RM>> and this makes all creationist arguments circular.
 AC> Hmmm, I don't know of any Evolutionists who have attempted to disprove
 AC> Evolution through experiment.
Which would be logical. They do however offer evidence for their theories 
which is open to be tested.
 AC> And, of course, any evidence to the
 AC> contrary to Evolution dismissed with the creation of sub-theories
 AC> to reconcile contradicting evidence.
Such as?
 AC> NOTE: Creationists put forth a model
 AC> that does make predictions and thus can be tested.
Then maybe you'd like to post the Creationist model that you speak of, AND 
what it predicts, and allow us to make our own judgments?
 RM>> 2) Creationism stems from a belief in "God".  The key word here is 
 RM>> "belief", which makes creationism a religion and has no place being
 RM>> argued as a science.
 AC> Evolution stems from the belief that there is no God.
So it's nothing to do with the millions of fossils and bones then?
    Relatif Tuinn
... Assembler is the easiest way to crash your computer.
--- Spot 1.3a #1413
---------------