TS, so that must make both creation and evolution nothing but unproved theories.
it's not that simple.
one of these theories is falsifiable, the other isn't. and yet, falsifiability is a prerequisete for a scientific hypothesis or theory. evolution is falsifiable any day at any time. all we would have to find are rabbit fossils in cambrian strata, date it to the same period, and presto, the entire theory would be severely damaged.
now, tell me how creationism is falsifiable? it's not, because the creationists have not defined anything on their own. they only reply to evolutionists. they have no model. their only model for bio-diversity is "God". and "God" himself is unfalsifiable, and unexplainable and a mystery, and only mentioned in some old book called genesis that has been shown to be written by 3 different people and not moses. therefore, creationism is unfalsifiable and is not scientific. not only that, but there is great debate as to whether god even exists, something which should give creationists pause, but it doesn't. all he would have to do, is show his face and slap the scientists up side the head, pat the creationists on the back, and show us how he did it. but he doesn't. either he doesn't care, doesn't exist, or is waiting for a future time. of those three possibilities, which is the most economic? why does it have to be economic? because god is not helping us out here, so we have to guess on our own. and no. i am not saying evolution is guess work. i am saying that until god shows up, evolution will be the most economic, ***parsimonious*** answer to the riddle of bio-diversity. it's falsifiable, has predictive value for future discoveries (to ensure that evolution as a theory is still relevant), and is a *simpler* explanation than God, because we can't know that god even exists.
does this make any sense? scientific method. it's all based on this, and NOT religious method, if there is such a thing. we have a lot to be thankful for with regards science, and people like scientists who were willing to follow the data wherever it led, regardless of what they think about god. this, of course, is not in response to the article you posted, but then again this thread isn't about evolution/creation either. but here is an illustration of what life probably looked like in the cambrian period, based on what we know from the fossil record. this is what life was like on earth, the entire earth, billions of years ago. religion (creationists) would never have found this out for us:
and please, no comments about how you think god could still have done all of this, because that is a question about abiogenesis, not evolution, as the computational nature of dna and rna suggests evolution much more strongly than that of the tinkering hand of a higher intelligence. does this make sense? we are computer programs, not blue prints. this is obvious when one learns about the nature of genomes, and *also* fits with the theory of evolution better than with the unfalsifiable, unproven *hypothesis* of creation.
i have already responded to many answersingenesis threads on this board in the last year. it's always the same story. i read it. i find the fallacy contained in the implicit assumption of the article. i shed light on it, and it's motives. then i move on to the technical stuff, explaining why it is a misrepresentation of evolution, and why what they are saying flies in the face of modern biology, or paleontology or anthropology or genetics. then i leave some smart-alec remarks, because i need to laugh a little as the previous exercise is always extremely boring. the creationists either do not understand/comprehend the replies, or they will not admit that they are cornered because they think jesus is watching, and frankly they have more allegiance to him than some atheistic human. and i am tired of doing this. tired of it, because i am not an evangelist for science. and i haven't even done half as much as alanF or abaddon or funky derek or sng or leolaia or midget. but it just gets tiring because it is a big old merry-go-round with creationists. you respond to one answersingenesis article, and a day later they post a different one. the evolutionists do all the work, and the creationists just sit back a chuckle at their impressive cut and paste abilities. and then 4 months later, the same article appears again, and the merry-go-round resumes.