The fish darwin symbol... N!rmpbcBiyXn8GRV.z60~gpz0J#a0P_LaB.sV 862

But your views are founded entirely on religious dogma.

No, but a dogmatic explanation based on a Judeo-Christian myth has no place in a discussion of science. If you want to discuss creationism it belongs in a program on folklore.

Hardly and it's amusing to hear you claim that a view that fairy tales deserve discussing in an appropriate place is "feeble" whereas saying dogmatically that something must be so because you can't imagine an alternative is to be given the same weight as a theory backed by sound evidence.

There is no such thing. There is no scientific, nor even any rational basis for creation.

Neither is the flat earth theory. The reasons are the same in each case.

I'm not confusing anything, it's you who can't seem to separate myth from reality.

Yes you are, you are promoting an alternative. You promote an explanation which excludes evolution. That is a dismissal of the theory of evolution. Indeed given that so far all you have done is waffle and have failed to provide a single credible instance which supports the notion that everythign just got created one day, the only tool you have available is dismissal.

You fail to understand the meaning of the word theory as has been pointed out ad nauseam. A theory is a working model that fits observed facts. Until somethign better comes along it will do, in that it not only explains facts but can also be used to predict events that have subsequently been proved. As a simple example, it's possible to predict some aspects of animal behaviour working mathematically from a proposition that evolution occurs. These patterns of behaviour which lead to survival of a species ae referred to as Evolutionary Stable Strategies (ESS). One of the strategies that can be predicted is how an animal will defend its territory. The prediction is that one model of behaviour is that an invader will challenge the incumbent for possession of the territory. The two will threaten and possibly even fight up until the point that physical damage becomes a possibility. Then, in most cases one party will give up.

But which one? Mathematically it doesn't matter which party gives up, aggressor or defender. As long as one party eventually runs away the strategy is stable.

Now at the time this discovery was made it was fairly obvious how animals behave. The aggressor is always the one to back down if the struggle continues for too long. There are countless examples of this. No one had ever observed the opposite behaviour so the discovery that the strategy of "if attacked run away" has equal value was a challenge.

Almost simultaneously, and independently, research showed a opulation of spiders that behave with the second behaviour. Pick up a spider and drop it into the burrow of another spider and the incumbent immediately runs away, into another burrow where the incumbent runs away (and so on).

Unexpected, not easy to predict withotu a thorough knowledge of the consequences of a theory of evolution and since that date behaviour that has been observed elsewhere for other populations.

Creationism provides no such insight. Creationism simply says some higher power created everything, it says this without proof to support the buttertion.

Creationism is inseparable from religion, and it's disingenuous of you to try to claim that it's possible to discuss creationism without involving religion. For it follows that if things were created then somethign created them and if that creator is not the deity then what is it? Are you positing that there is a power even higher than god who created heaven, earth, all the things that creep, crawl, swim, fly and walk and also created a god as a bit of a side job on Sunday afternoon?

Should nothing be taught as fact while it remains a theory? After all, it's the atomic theory and quantum theory so until they become proven fact, it seems atom plants will fail to explode and tunnelling semiconductors will all fail to work.

Firstly that exactly how creationsim is taught and secondly you have provided no proof at all to back up your arguments. So provide some proof for creation.

-- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759