[Krsqk]

Again, astronomical theories can not be proven, as there would have been no observation. We can't see what other stars and such are actually like, just make guesses as to their nature based off of facts we do know and our observations. Much like evolution and origins theories. Hmm... anyone else see a connection?

Well, yes. In both cases, the observations made are very distant from the subject (whether in time or distance), and both are inordinately based on extrapolation of mathematical measurements and constants which may or may not be accurate--the length of time involved more or less ensures a lare margin of error for the results. Surely you don't put the results gleaned by astronomy on the same level as those from, say, botany or chemistry. Theoretical science has exploded in the past few decades, and it will take quite a bit of time for it to "settle out" and yield some hard facts, instead of just theoretical entities which currently only exist (to us) mathematically.

...[religious origins theories] are based off of what some random person claimed to be true thousands of years ago with no evidence to back it up.

Well, we don't know that. If that person was receiving direct revelation from God, I would think they could accept that as evidence.

I was asking for a counter theory to evolution. Other people have commited the fallacy of comparing evolution with the origins aspects of Creationism, but I have not.

So you're asking for what, exactly? An explanation of speciation under creationism? It is not possible under most forms of creationism to separate origins from our present-day state.

quote:

---

God's too busy answering my prayers to answer your questions.

I certainly hope that you are not really such an intolerant elitist as you just painted yourself with that remark... I am going to assume (hope) the contrary because of the smiley you included, but you never know. Such remarks do not help you make your point at all; in fact, they hurt it pretty severely.

---

No, they don't hurt it any more than saying the Big Bang doesn't accept interviews hurts it. As for the intolerant elitist thing, I think the smiley was sufficient for that. Or would you prefer a instead of just a ? The point was, there is no possible observation of the past and there is no one to interview who was there. Thus, the standard methods of verifying historical theories are unavailable.

Maybe you should take lessons in logic then. There are more ways to prove something than hard physical evidence. This is how things like origin theories can (though not all of them) fall under the realm of science.

Actually, I have taken lessons in logic. I can spot and spit out Bulverisms, ad hominems, and amphibolies right along side everyone else. I am aware of many of the various philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God, the supernatural, and (for that matter) reason itself. Not one of those arguments is a proof for anything--at most, they are an intellectual diVersion which is picked up, toyed with, and set aside. We can experience and/or believe in any of those examples. We can, in some sense, observe reason, though this is a subjective, not objective, observation. The bottom line is, the ability to logically discuss something does not equal the ability to logically prove or disprove it.