Michael Walsh wrote in message ...
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:
Creationism is a disproved theory.

Yes, and can you cite the laboratory work and tests that disproved
Creationism?

Can you show me the proof that the moon isn't pushed in its orbit by
the beats of invisible, intangible, angel's wings? (I am neither being
facetious nor ridiculous- I ask this in all seriousness.)

The last things that I read about Creationism lead me to believe that
it is internally consistent.

I'm sure a creationist theory can be produced that would be so. But it
would still doubtless be a daft theory.

But that isn't the question.

Note that this is not the same thing as scientifically proving it.

Unfortunately, in the formalism of physics, it is not possible to
prove a theory against all other possible theories, there are always
theories that can be constructed that match known reality that differ
from the currently accepted theory.

The beat of angels wings is one example of that.

Evolution is a proved theory.

There is a lot of consistent scientific evidence that points to evolution as
the process by which life was developed. If it was complete and
irrefutable it would be described as The Law of Evolution.

Sadly, this is not the case, plenty of theories; such as 'Newton's
laws of motion' are called laws, but really are only theories; and in
fact are known to be only approximately correct (i.e. false). In
modern physics, partly due to the historical baggage, 'law' and
'theory' are interchangeable.

The nearest thing physics has to laws is 'the standard model'.

Nobody teaches the phlogiston
theory in schools, except as an example of wrong
headed theories which can be disproved.

I believe we know quite a bit more about combustion than we
do about the origin of the species.

Yeah, well, mankind now has access to the source code; the history is
writ large in the organisms DNA. Incidentally, there's not a massive
mystery about species, it's simply that some organisms rarely mate
with other organisms and their DNA has drifted far enough away that
their offspring are increasingly less viable, and these are
conventionally called 'species'. But there's no hard and fast boundary
between species.

Mike Walsh