Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Captain Scarlet]

Brush up on your logic. In a two possibility model, evidence against one possible answer is evidence for the other option.

Logical fallacies:
1) Slippery slope. The consequence does not necessarily follow from the premise.
2) Either or argument.
Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merit. You seem to think that all one has to do is refute evolution and creationism will somehow be seen as the logical alternative. Such is NEVER the case using the scientific method. Creationism must be seen as providing a better explanation than evolution. And when we look at the scientific data compiled over the last 150 years, we see that there simply is no merit whasoever in supposing that creationism explains anything, much less replaces evolution as a valid scientific argument.

Indeed orogenicman.

Statler, if I said disproving evolution proves that we didn't get here by accident and we are infact living in a computer simulation by another race of creatures whose own universe was much better than ours at producing and sustaining life (and had come into existence through natural processes). That explanation has more going for it than the god hypothesis, which is something put there to prevent infinite regress, but fails to explain anything. I'm afraid there are more than 2 possiblities and you can keep making them up (hence as I stated a near infinite range of them could explain us, the earth our solar system etc). The best ones are the ones we have derived through the scientific method and it continues to be refined as we smash more particles together at higher speeds and as we get better telescopes. However if through the scientific method you can prove otherwise then... we are all ears. Otherwise you are just throwing spin and half/no-truths from the sidelines and spouting the same stuff (the politest word there is for it) that comes from convicted fraudsters like Hovind.