BackFire
Blood. It's nature's lube
You should really do more research on the terms that you use..Much like Creationism...the Macro - Evolutionary theory is more theistic than it is scientific..no "valid" evidence has been found supporting this theory. All of the alleged "transitional fossils" found supporting this theory have been relegated to being forgeries or to being members of a specific already known species of plant, animal, etc...It's scientific model is very illogical..and contradicts itself in many different ways.
Although philosophical, the creationist theory accepts all fields of natural science...It's sceintific model is logical..and doesn't contradict itself in anyway shape or form. To suggest that it does is pure ignorance...
I would also like to add that Creationism does support the scientific process known as "Adaptation"(micro -evolution)
Science contradicts creationism in many ways. For example, there are fossils that are far older then 6,000 years old. According to creationism, the earth is 6,000 years old.
It's very questionable and debatable whether creationism is logical, not to mention this is nothing more then opinion, seeing as, as far as I, and many other people (including the majority of scientists) can see, the belief of the earth being created in 6 days is anything but logical, which is what is believed by creationalists.
That's a very simple minded rationale..and can be applied to any theoretical argument. I could use that exact same argument to validate Creationism as well..
The difference is there is NO factual scientific evidence of creationism, if there is, please let me know what they are, and how exactly they are scientific. There is some scientific evidence to back up the evolution theory, such as the fact that, as I mentioned above, there are fossils that are, according to creationism, older then the earth.
You could use the exact same argument to validate your belief in creationism, but you can't, in any reasonable of sound way, argue that creationism is in any way, shape or form, science. Too believe otherwise is ignorance and bullshit. Again, it's based on faith and religion, not science.
No one is debating the existance of Dinosaurs. Anyway this is a moot point, Dinosaur fossils do not support the Macro - Evolutionary theory in anyway shape or form. To state that they do is pure ignorance.
I brought up dino fossils because they contradict creationism in that they are, according to scientific methods, older then 6,000 years old.
Your wrong once again. I'm assuming you mean Macro - Evolution. However you do have the right to your opinion..and I respect it.
You're wrong by denying evolution as a scientific theory, how is it NOT a scientific theory? It's based on the knowledge we've gotten through modern science, there's a reason why the vast majority of scientists believe in evolution, because it's backed logically by unbiased science. Which is more then we can say about creationism. The only scientific backing for creationism is through logical and argumentative fallacies, such as twisting facts and using assumptions and the whole "well, evolution isn't fact, so it must be false and creationism must be true", all the while believing that the earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago, despite science proving this wrong.
Creationism isnt' science, and it's crucial for it to stay out of science text books. I'm not against teaching it in school, do it in History or something, but giving it credibility in a subject that it has no credibility in, is not only insulting to what science is, but it's also a lie, something those pesky, pushy creationists are supposed to be against.
Not to mention the teaching of creationism goes against the first ammendment by forcing children to learn about religious belief in a public school. Freedom from religion, people.