This seems to be taking on a life of its own and my viewpoint
seems to be getting a bit distorted by people responding.

Ian Woollard wrote:

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.)

Actually that pretty much corresponds to my point.

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.

I am not arguing that particular point.

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.

You can spin current reality in all kinds of ways and plausibilities.

The scientific method has a very strong method of investigation by
repeatable experiments. There are quite a few things that cannot
be fully tested, such as what really is happening and has happened
in cosmology?

Doesn't mean we should stop trying to make these determinations.

Mike Walsh