>>21
furthermore, while religion likes to be absolutist, science is just the opposite. There is no 100% chance of anything (thank you entropy theory). We can be 99.999999999999999999999999999999^to the googolplex power % sure of something but never 100%. we have not proven macroevolution and science does not claim this. we have shown that it is by far the most likely possibility. we have also shown that by contrast, creationism as currently presented is ALMOST completely unlikely (0% also doesnt exist in science. u see how science doesnt rule shit out entirely because it recognizes the possibility of the undiscovered?) Evidence suggests that we evolved from things. Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a myth. The difference here is that to be a theory, you must present a criterion that can be either supported or discredited EMPIRICALLY. Creationism relies on supernatural explanations which, by deifinition, cannot be naturally or empirically explained or meassured. Creationists like to claim anything evolution cannot currently account for as proofs for creationism. Thats like saying that because a car does not contain any red pigment in its' paint, it is proven to be blue. The conclusion does not follow the prmeise, and is, therefore a FAILURE! now if you wanted to reconcile the 2, you could say that god is an amoeba and created us in his image (that of primordial slime) and that "eating the fruit of knowledge" was a metaphore for the beginins of evolution. both science and chrisitanity agree that we are all made of dust (various forms of star dust, according to science). but thats up to you if you want to reconcile the 2. bottom line, creationism is not science because it does not measure things empirically. evolution is a theory but it is one that has sufficient evidence to be the current standing truth. Science is always open to change, provided you can back it up.

tl;dr OP is either stupid or a troll. creationism isnt science; evolution is. threads over; pool's closed.