TG: I didn't say that creationism was necessarily compelling. Nor did I say that it's impossible to make a decent case for it. Neither are true- I tend to lean towards the evolution end of things, if only because most creationists tend to be snarling wankers when it gets down to really challenging their belief set- anyone who has to get that defensive obviously hasn't thought the idea through that clearly in the first place. However, this does not reflect on all creationists. And, at the very least, there's a better effort to be made towards it than the half-baked one HotSnoj proposed.
Charlotte: In the eyes of a nonbeliever, you must admit the virgin birth of a guy who can ferment water, spontaneously generates fish on multiple occasions (sounds like a cartoon spot, that one- Fish Man!!!!), and says (and does) all sorts of wise things about tolerance and then supposedly turns around and becomes the basis of 2000 years of systematic abuse of gays (whom he evidently associated with multiple times), Jews (of which he was one), blacks (under which category the Palestinian Jews of the time period would certainly have fallen in later times) and women sounds fairly farfetched. As does a large man in the sky siccing a man-eating whale on one of his couriers gone astray. We don't find the miracles ludicrous because they're culturally ingrained. And because there's something of use to be learned in at least a few of them. But it's hardly ignorant to find the whole Bible thing rather silly- just a different bias than the one most of us are used to.
HotSnoj: No. It's not "just a belief", that's the point. For some reason Creationists can't work out the distinction between blind faith and acceptance of a convenient and fairly demonstrable theory in the face of evidence- I suspect it's because you all don't understand logic all that well, which would explain a whole hell of a lot. Not everything is a faith, and the refusal of you as a group to recognize the important distinctions is really the entire reason you lot consistently fail to be convincing in any way, shape, or form, and hence generally get the (reasonably accurate) depiction of being a bunch of irate backwards Bible-belters intimidated by God-knows-what and lashing out at "the Man's reasoning" for no readily discernible reason.
Kami: Science, by definition, is about theory and proof. Exactly like math. Theory is where something cannot be demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true 100% of the time, due to the simple fact that we are not omniscient, but is more a provision to allow for flexibility than anything else. A ridiculous degree of "proof" is required for a theory to be deemed workable enough to be used commonly. You can be pretty damn sure that a "theory" that's been in common currency for about 40 years will remain for a long, long time, perhaps permanently. Hence, evolution can be "proven"- not beyond the absolute shadow-of-a-doubt that would require a time machine (and even then some would deny it), but more than enough for any person who isn't just arguing for the sake of being blinkered and contrary to be convinced that it is, at the very least, the best solution available at the moment.
