How Much Do We Really Know

a reply to: admirethedistance

I'm sure they did do their research but i don't think studies reached back 4400 years ago

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: admirethedistance

I'm sure they did do their research but i don't think studies reached back 4400 years ago

Do you understand what a geologic core sample is? They go from the present back hundreds of thousands of years, with many going back millions of years (and more).

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: peter vlar
I'm on ATS because i love to debate and can accept when I'm wrong. To answer your questions tho realistically i believe the waters rose maybe 90 meters so a little over 300 feet.

So are you saying that water rose a total of 90m or 90m above sea level? They are 2 different things. And this belief is based on what exactly? Do you know how high up on any given mountain you would need to recover samples from based on your 90m postulation? Waters rising even 90m above sea level doesn't mean you need to go as high as 90m up a mountain depending on local geography and other variables for which you do not account for.

The salinity would have been substantially lower than it is today

Again, what exactly are you basing this on? WHY would the salinity of the oceans have been substantially lower? You're talking about a period of time of only a few thousand years ago, not millions or 100's of millions We have ice cores going back 800,000 years. Nowhere in those core samples is any evidence to support this supposition you present regarding salinity levels being different 4-6000 years ago when your alleged deluge occurred.

and i myself know of about 10 forms of plant life that thrive in flood like conditions.

And of those 10, how many can survive submerged for the 9 months you posit? What are the effects of the salinity in the soil afterwards? How many of these plants are able to sustain herbivorous life and how quickly would these plants recover enough to sustain that life in the necessary magnitude to feed not just the herbivores but the carnivores who prey on them which in turn, humans rely on both examples. You have no idea do you? Do you really believe that nobody has bothered to study these possibilities and that you're such an innovator as to be the first to declare this all not just plausible but an absolute fact?

You simply refuse to account for the variables because you want to believe SO strongly. This is a religious stance and bears no resemblance to science.

If the land was submerged under 90m of water for 9 months, it would take YEARS for the land to recover and bear plantlife again. You seem to believe that the water would return to previous levels magically and that life would continue as normal again in an immediate time frame. This simply is not the case.

What about the life that lives beneath the water? You don't think that any increase in salinity would be harmful to freshwater life? Or the decrease in salinity as a result of the mixing of salt and fresh waters would have an adverse affect on ocean life? You would be wrong on both accounts. Not only would the salinity affect both types of life but you would have world wide affects on O2 levels and the ability for the water to sustain life very similar to what was seen in the Black Sea 7600 BP This would have been a massive catastrophe of global proportions that would have affected every single level of the food chain and decimated every single ecological niche. Current populations of the world would not be anything resembling what they are today, the biodiversity we currently witness would not exist. This is based on multiple scientific disciplines working in conjunction from geology to biology to genetics. There is no possibility for this event to have occurred only a few thousand years ago. There would be massive genetic bottlenecks in any surviving species and they would not be anything resembling what strides the Earth today.

You may be under the impression that the flood lasted longer than it did which was less than a year about 9 months.

I'm not under any such impression. I'm of the impression that based on all current available data that no world wide inundation has occurred in the last 2.5 Bn years. And even then, the entire planet wasn't covered in water. You simply don't seem to grasp the massive worldwide ramifications of the entire planet being covered in only a few hundred additional feet of water for 9 months.

I'm no geologist so i don't know what test they could run. But i had facts even if they aren't proven facts

Then you don't have any facts. Facts in science are able to be tested and independently verified and repeated. That's how it works. Making a claim is not presenting a fact. If you haven't bothered to engage in basic due diligence to have even a basic grasp of what you are looking for or what testing would be necessary then how in the world are you to convince anyone else of what you so strongly believe? You have to have a basis for your hypothetical and highly speculative assertions. I'm sorry that you disagree, but that's how it works in science.

You guys and your boxed in minds can't accept a new idea.

You really have no clue do you? Work I did as a graduate student studying cohabitation of HSS and HN was hypothetical nearly 20 years ago. What we worked on then and were sometimes mocked for is todays proven fact so please spare me the self pious homilies about what ideas I can and can not accept. What you can not accept is how science actually works. This isn't a debate, it's an elementary school demonstration for kids my daughters age who haven't been taught the scientific method yet.

Before you even begin any scientific work you have to first have an idea "believe in something" so that you can prove it to be true.

I don't disagree with that in principle but the fact remains that those ideas are spurned from other facts or sometimes mistakes, that lead us in new directions. Either way, its the data that takes you there. This has nothing to do with being closed minded or being boxed in as you seem to think. Without the scientific method all you have are the Sitchin's and Hancock's of the world.

Scientist don't pick up ice cubes and study them to prove they melt because its known already therefore there has to be an unknown " something no one believes to be true" to study and prove its existence

Have you ever taken a science course beyond high school? This really is the argument of an incredulous student who refuses to accept the facts as they are presented and instead stomps their feet in a fit of pouting. The unknowns you keep alluding towards are more often than not, an unknown to the general public but have an actual basis in prior or concurrent work being done.

Please feel free to correct me with an prescient examples demonstrating your frame of reference.

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: rebellion7
I'm positive that the holes in our theory of evolution can be filled im exploring these regions.

What holes are you talking about, The theory of Evolution is both a fact and a theory, because it has no holes. When I hear comments like there, its very clear that they are made from ignorance.

You or noone else can prove human evolution, therefore it is not a fact. The idea that we come from monkeys-chimps-any other mamal that travels sometimes bipedal has never been repeatedly shown to be proven. Thus science is inconclusive when it comes to humans, that is why there is and will always be a missing link. No source you have read about this so called fact can be proven when you have not seen it yourself, you are dedicating your beliefs to someone elses findings that you have never seen. You don't question evolution at all? Natural selection is truth, evolution is not, sorry to burst your bubble.

a reply to: iDope

Due to the immense timescales over which it occurs, nobody will ever be able to observe evolution 'happening". That doesn't mean it doesn't, though. It's still supported by every bit of evidence that we have, and it still remains the most likely answer, by far.

originally posted by: iDope

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: rebellion7
I'm positive that the holes in our theory of evolution can be filled im exploring these regions.

What holes are you talking about, The theory of Evolution is both a fact and a theory, because it has no holes. When I hear comments like there, its very clear that they are made from ignorance.

You or noone else can prove human evolution, therefore it is not a fact. The idea that we come from monkeys-chimps-any other mamal that travels sometimes bipedal has never been repeatedly shown to be proven. Thus science is inconclusive when it comes to humans, that is why there is and will always be a missing link. No source you have read about this so called fact can be proven when you have not seen it yourself, you are dedicating your beliefs to someone elses findings that you have never seen. You don't question evolution at all? Natural selection is truth, evolution is not, sorry to burst your bubble.

firstly science does not require direct observation to be proven, no one on earth has ever seen any of the outer planets with their eyes, but they are there and their orbits are proveable

secondly, Wow, you really need to do some reading
start here at this aptly named article
"Evolution is a Fact and a Theory"
www.talkorigins.org...
Its over 20 years old, so you should be able to understand it, even with the limited resources at your disposal


btw, as mentioned earlier, scientists don't use the term missing link, that's religious people or sometimes people who don't know what they are talking about who do. Sometimes if you like real comedy, its the guys who believe aliens did it, despite the fact that no one has ever seen a real alien so they are dedicating their beliefs to someone elses findings that they have never seen and a little research usually shows that the people making claims for alien intervention are simply lying for profit because they've worked out how ignorant their target audience is

oh and theres this
"•MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable.

CORRECTION: This misconception encompasses two incorrect ideas: (1) that all science depends on controlled laboratory experiments, and (2) that evolution cannot be studied with such experiments. First, many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison. In the same way, evolutionary biologists can test their ideas about the history of life on Earth by making observations in the real world. Second, though we can't run an experiment that will tell us how the dinosaur lineage radiated, we can study many aspects of evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory setting. In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment. And in some cases, biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild. "
evolution.berkeley.edu...

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: iDope

Due to the immense timescales over which it occurs, nobody will ever be able to observe evolution 'happening". That doesn't mean it doesn't, though. It's still supported by every bit of evidence that we have, and it still remains the most likely answer, by far.

I was reading an article in the latest issue New Scientist last night regarding the overhaul that Darwin's theory of Sexual Selection has been progressively undergoing in recent decades. At the time of it's publication, his theory of evolution caused great controversy, challenging almost every cultural perception of ourselves that we had thus far accumulated. His addendum on sexual selection however was accepted with an erudite nod of the head by all and sundry, because it confirmed what they believed to be true, that invariably it is the males that fight for the right to be chosen by the female - which obviously can be proven to be an observable nonsense.

Evolution has stood the test of time in theoretical applications because it was based upon repeated observable patterns, the theory of sexual selection however was a projection of societal mores upon nature, and therefore it is falling apart and being re-written along the lines of social selection.

a reply to: Anaana

The concept of sexual selection was first articulated by Charles Darwin in the 19th century. His ideas on sexual selection were met with scepticism by his contemporaries and not considered of great importance in the 20th century, so that in the 1930s biologists decided to include sexual selection as a mode of natural selection. Only in the 21st Century have they become more important in biology

en.wikipedia.org...

Basically Darwin was the stimulus
The modern theory of evolution relies on aspects that Darwin wasn't even aware existed
Details
en.wikipedia.org...


I'm drinking wine and eating cheese, and catching some rays, you know.

a reply to: iDope

No matter how well you explain it, science fundamentalists will always respond with shoving "sources" from other narrow minded folk to ridicule your statements.

originally posted by: iDope


You or noone else can prove human evolution, therefore it is not a fact.

The way you word this leaves a little too much wiggle room for comfort. Are you implying that evolution as a whole is a factual process but it has not been proven in humans or are you saying that evolution is entirely invalid because it hasn't been proven to have occurred in humans?

If it is the former, then that's a massive display of cognitive dissonance and defies both reality and proven science. Evolution as presented in the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is one of, if not the, most thoroughly researched, cited and verifiable theories in the history of science. It is indeed a fact accepted by over 95% of members of the National Academy of the Sciences who have degrees in the Earth Sciences and Biological Sciences. The overwhelming evidence supporting the facts of Evolution are insurmountable unless one walks the path of willful ignorance. If you believe that evolution is valid for the rest of life on Earth but not for humans, what then is your alternate explanation and how would you explain the validity for some forms of life but not for one specific form of life?

If your implication is the latter of the 2 then please see above as there is no question amongst reputable practitioners of the above mentioned disciplines. As Marduk has cited a couple of excellent resources from Talk Origins and Berkley's site regarding evolution there really isn't much more to say unless you're willing to do the legwork and then dispute the evidence itself as opposed to issuing blanket statements.

The idea that we come from monkeys-chimps-any other mamal that travels sometimes bipedal has never been repeatedly shown to be proven.

The idea that you are trying to dispute proven science with a demonstration of your absolute lack of understanding of some very basic aspects is amusing at best. If you can't be bothered to know what the theory even states/discusses and want to conflate monkeys with chimpanzees then you're pretty far out on a shaky limb already. While both are primates, they are very different things. Pan Troglodyte are an ape, a very specific one at that and an extremely close relative genetically. Monkeys on the other hand is a more generalized term that covers all of the haplorhini clade of which Apes are not a member. Furthermore, there is nothing out there anywhere that states we "came from" chimps or any other ape. The evidence shows that we share common ancestry with the other living apes. As Haplorhini diverged and became its own clade roughly 60MA and apes only 15 MA give or take, your talking entirely different balls of wax here.

Thus science is inconclusive when it comes to humans, that is why there is and will always be a missing link.

Are we still in the late 19th/early 20th centuries? Missing link is an incredible anachronistic term that hasn't been used since the fraud known as Piltdown man was perpetrated. Let that sink in for a minute...the last time missing link was used, at least by nonreligious origin pushers, was on a known hoax.

No source you have read about this so called fact can be proven when you have not seen it yourself, you are dedicating your beliefs to someone elses findings that you have never seen.

That's a bold and saucy statement of incredible assumption. I think you would be surprised at the number of people on ATS with proper Anthropology and Biology backgrounds that HAVE done the research and HAVE verified the data. Even undergrad Anthro students are encouraged to look for and provide evidence of issues with evolution.

You don't question evolution at all?

As I point out above, nobody who goes into fields related to Evolutionary Theory does so with a closed mind or lack of due diligence.

Natural selection is truth, evolution is not, sorry to burst your bubble.

Are you quote mining AIG or Ken Ham here? Do you understand natural selection? While it is only one components that leads to evolutionary biodiversity, the very act of natural selection leading to speciation is in fact proof of evolution in action. Here is a simplified Natural Selection for Dummies-
evolution.berkeley.edu...

a reply to: Fer1527

generally, the statements don't require sources to be ridiculed. The statements do a fine job of ridiculing themselves on their own. Citations aren't narrow minded, the people who ignore the science and are incapable of providing evidence to support their supposition are the narrow minded ones because the entire premise is either base ignorance by people who simply don't understand the science or willful ignorance by those who refuse to accept proven science. And anyone who believes there is such a thing as a "science fundamentalist" has never been to a conference or lecture.

a reply to: peter vlar

In every single age in human history, people have thought they knew every answer. They've been wrong every time. I don't trust my convictions to science because I'm well aware today's given facts will be proven wrong tomorrow. Anyone who thinks otherwise is narrow minded.

I'm not saying new hypothesis shouldn't be criticized, I am saying they are criticized in the wrong way as that criticism is based on "sources" rather than original critical thinking. The same behaviour was displayed by the so-called "wise men" who claimed the Sun moved around the Earth. I'm sure there were many sources "proving" it back then, but they were all wrong weren't they?

a reply to: Fer1527

the only source "proving" the sun revolved around the earth was the bible and papal authority. There were plenty of people in ancient times who were well aware the earth revolved around the sun. The Greeks new it 2300 years ago. It just happens that religious proclivities got in the way of progress and it wasn't until the 16th century when Kepler was able to prove it mathematically.

The time period you refer to is not anywhere near the realm of comparability to what science does today. Especially when talking about modern evolutionary synthesis where you have multiple fields and disciplines confirming various aspects independently. its not as if there is 1 singular source of information or even one field of science promoting these facts.

That's not to say that what is currently known can not undergo revision when new data becomes available but just because science leaves itself open to change and accepting new evidence, that doesn't mean that it is all wrong either. The heliocentric world we live in now doesn't mean that everything stated in the past is wrong or that others in the past didn't have it right. Newton's equations have held up nicely for over 300 years now and formed the basis for modern physics.

Questioning things is never a bad thing. Stating its all wrong because its the answer science gives and then having no legitimate rebuttal or evidence to the contrary other than puffing up feathers and saying you simply don't believe it and won't trust your convictions to it is another matter entirely.

originally posted by: Fer1527
a reply to: peter vlar

In every single age in human history, people have thought they knew every answer. They've been wrong every time. I don't trust my convictions to science because I'm well aware today's given facts will be proven wrong tomorrow. Anyone who thinks otherwise is narrow minded.

As you have already demonstrated that you don't know the facts of human evolution, you are not in a position to make invalid generalisations about it.

originally posted by: Fer1527
a reply to: peter vlar

I'm not saying new hypothesis shouldn't be criticized, I am saying they are criticized in the wrong way as that criticism is based on "sources" rather than original critical thinking. The same behaviour was displayed by the so-called "wise men" who claimed the Sun moved around the Earth. I'm sure there were many sources "proving" it back then, but they were all wrong weren't they?

You do not understand how a scientific theory is arrived at do you. It starts as a hypothesis and is then proven by being testable. This enables scientists to make predictions. The modern synthesis of evolution has been formed from the work of many hundreds of "wise men"
You do realise that you just claimed that a Helioentric solar system is wrong ?
So you apparently believe that the sun and the other planets revolve around a stationary earth. Your apparent knowledge then is on a par with the middle ages.
There's this guy Tycho Brahe, perhaps you should google him

Questioning things is never a bad thing. Stating its all wrong because its the answer science gives and then having no legitimate rebuttal or evidence to the contrary other than puffing up feathers and saying you simply don't believe it and won't trust your convictions to it is another matter entirely.

I am not stating everything is wrong at all, and of course hard facts can't be dismissed, they're there, they're real. But the theories that try to explain those facts are created by people, and people fail, regardless of their best efforts and of scientific progress. Anything should be taken with a grain of salt, even the theories scientists come up with.

You do not understand how a scientific theory is arrived at do you. It starts as a hypothesis and is then proven by being testable. This enables scientists to make predictions. The modern synthesis of evolution has been formed from the work of many hundreds of "wise men"
You do realise that you just claimed that a Helioentric solar system is wrong ?
So you apparently believe that the sun and the other planets revolve around a stationary earth. Your apparent knowledge then is on a par with the middle ages.
There's this guy Tycho Brahe, perhaps you should google him

Like I said before, start reading more carefully. I didn't claim the sun revolves around the Earth. I am saying the people who believed that used the same arguments you do. You're trying too hard to make me look irrational.

And yes scientific theories do start as a hypothesis. Only afterwards it is tested and proved, that is exactly my point. What happens is, if we dismiss new hypothesis simply because they are going against the current interpretation of data, you could say science is being held back in a way. That is what I was referring to when I used the term "science fundamentalist".

originally posted by: Fer1527


And yes scientific theories do start as a hypothesis. Only afterwards it is tested and proved, that is exactly my point. What happens is, if we dismiss new hypothesis simply because they are going against the current interpretation of data, you could say science is being held back in a way. That is what I was referring to when I used the term "science fundamentalist".

Fer, from reading your other posts, its quite clear that you believe what you do about science because science does not agree with you that ultra terrestrials exist.
You need to consider, that the same scientists (mainly physicists) who you have formed this opinion of, are in no way similar to the scientists who have proven evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. In fact it would be like you having issues with your family doctor, because your dentist botched an extraction.
As has been explained to you, "Evolution as presented in the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is one of, if not the, most thoroughly researched, cited and verifiable theories in the history of science. " (peter vlar)
You should think about that, because you are throwing the baby out with the ultraterrestrial bathwater, because being an evolution denier allies you with creationists who are the only group still denying it, because "Bible"

Also, posts full of opinion are rarely of any value, if you have a position, support it with links, otherwise it becomes clear that your position is just willfull ignorance
This link you should find helpful
www.dummies.com...

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Fer1527


And yes scientific theories do start as a hypothesis. Only afterwards it is tested and proved, that is exactly my point. What happens is, if we dismiss new hypothesis simply because they are going against the current interpretation of data, you could say science is being held back in a way. That is what I was referring to when I used the term "science fundamentalist".

Fer, from reading your other posts, its quite clear that you believe what you do about science because science does not agree with you that ultra terrestrials exist.
You need to consider, that the same scientists (mainly physicists) who you have formed this opinion of, are in no way similar to the scientists who have proven evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. In fact it would be like you having issues with your family doctor, because your dentist botched an extraction.
As has been explained to you, "Evolution as presented in the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is one of, if not the, most thoroughly researched, cited and verifiable theories in the history of science. " (peter vlar)
You should think about that, because you are throwing the baby out with the ultraterrestrial bathwater, because being an evolution denier allies you with creationists who are the only group still denying it, because "Bible"

Also, posts full of opinion are rarely of any value, if you have a position, support it with links, otherwise it becomes clear that your position is just willfull ignorance
This link you should find helpful
www.dummies.com...

I didn't quite deny evolution. If you've been reading my other posts, you'll see that I actually think creationism and evolution can be compatible.

In any case. I do take modern science paradigms with a bit of healthy skepticism, and I do admit that part of it is due to the ultra terrestrial hypothesis. Don't take me for a simple minded believer, though, I only believe what I see. But as long as science does not recognize things I am more than sure exist, I will take scientific theories with a grain of salt, as I am sure you would if you were in my position.

originally posted by: Fer1527

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Fer1527


And yes scientific theories do start as a hypothesis. Only afterwards it is tested and proved, that is exactly my point. What happens is, if we dismiss new hypothesis simply because they are going against the current interpretation of data, you could say science is being held back in a way. That is what I was referring to when I used the term "science fundamentalist".

Fer, from reading your other posts, its quite clear that you believe what you do about science because science does not agree with you that ultra terrestrials exist.
You need to consider, that the same scientists (mainly physicists) who you have formed this opinion of, are in no way similar to the scientists who have proven evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. In fact it would be like you having issues with your family doctor, because your dentist botched an extraction.
As has been explained to you, "Evolution as presented in the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is one of, if not the, most thoroughly researched, cited and verifiable theories in the history of science. " (peter vlar)
You should think about that, because you are throwing the baby out with the ultraterrestrial bathwater, because being an evolution denier allies you with creationists who are the only group still denying it, because "Bible"

Also, posts full of opinion are rarely of any value, if you have a position, support it with links, otherwise it becomes clear that your position is just willfull ignorance
This link you should find helpful
www.dummies.com...

I didn't quite deny evolution. If you've been reading my other posts, you'll see that I actually think creationism and evolution can be compatible.

.

Then you don't understand either creationism or evolution

Creationism- god created man exactly as he in now in Eden 6000 years ago (God is an extra terrestrial who created the earth)
vs
Evolution - Homo Sapiens is the current model of a homo line which has been evolving for millions of years (there is no god)

These are not even slightly compatible.

originally posted by: Fer1527



I am not stating everything is wrong at all, and of course hard facts can't be dismissed, they're there, they're real. But the theories that try to explain those facts are created by people, and people fail, regardless of their best efforts and of scientific progress. Anything should be taken with a grain of salt, even the theories scientists come up with.

That's one of the most confusing incidences of circular reasoning I've ever seen. Facts can't be dismissed yet MES can be dismissed despite it being a provable fact? I'm completely baffled by this. How do you reconcile contradicting yourself within the confines of a single paragraph? Because that's exactly what you have just done. Instead of issuing broad ranging, speculation based blanket statements, why don't you tell me what exactly is wrong with MES. Wouldn't that be an easier starting point here?

As for not saying that everything is wrong, perhaps you should word your responses more clearly because when you make statements such as the one below, the implication is that it's all B.S. because someone bothered to do their homework and are citing "sources" (and the quotes are from your original which implies that you think the sources aren't worth the paper they're printed on). Please clarify what the actual connotation you were attempting to convey was if not that any scientific "source" was mere fodder for scientific fundamentalists...which is a complete bull S# term anyway and meant as a slur and derogation. And yes, I do take exception to being labeled as such when I spent a large portion of time, energy and personal investment into actually learning about these theories that you both loathe and fail to grasp the basic fundamentals of. Again though, please feel free to educate me on what your exact issues are with evolution so that we can discuss them properly.

No matter how well you explain it, science fundamentalists will always respond with shoving "sources" from other narrow minded folk to ridicule your statements.

Like I said before, start reading more carefully. I didn't claim the sun revolves around the Earth. I am saying the people who believed that used the same arguments you do. You're trying too hard to make me look irrational.

Who used those same arguments to "prove" geocentrism? Can you provide examples of anyone who cited contemporary scientific sources to support a geocentric worldview? I already showed you that the Greeks knew as far back as the time of Alexander (and actually it was earlier that the first non geocentric model was derived by Philolaus in the 5th century BCE) that the Heliocentric model was correct and the Kepler proved such mathematically in the 16th century. There were many others in between. Aristarchus of Samos for example calculated the size of the Earth and the distance from the Earth to the Moon and the Sun as well as mathematically describing rotation of the solar system in the early 3rd century BCE. 5th century CE Carthaginian Martianus Capella likewise was able to discern that Venus and Mercury revolved around the Sun and his work was an influence on Capernicus. This trend continues through the middle ages on to Galileo and Kepler so who exactly used a scientific citation to "prove" geocentrism? This is your claim so the onus lies on you to address it.

And yes scientific theories do start as a hypothesis. Only afterwards it is tested and proved, that is exactly my point. What happens is, if we dismiss new hypothesis simply because they are going against the current interpretation of data, you could say science is being held back in a way. That is what I was referring to when I used the term "science fundamentalist".

Please provide examples of hypothesis that have supporting evidence that have been dismissed because they go against current paradigms thus holding back science in the way you describe. In science, its the evidence and the data that wins, not the paradigm.; 20 years ago it was looked down upon to be of the school of thought that humans and Neanderthals could have cohabitates or bred with viable offspring. Today it is a fact. It's about the evidence and the supporting data. And in the spirit of that, please demonstrate some examples that are in favor of your stance and I will gladly admit that I am in error. Because that's how science works. There are always going to be naysayers but they are the minority. To consider all adherents of the scientific method to be in league is like saying the Westboro Baptist Church represents all of Christianity.

a reply to: Marduk

What you just described is the roman catholic dogma, it is not creationism. Creationism is not the belief that everything in the hebrew bible is true.

Creationism: Mankind was created by someone. Creationism itself is not specific as to how that happened or who that someone is.

Religion: Mankind was created by X person, Y time ago by doing Z.

So while religion cannot possibly ever be compatible with anything else, creationism on the other hand is certainly compatible with evolution. Creationism in itself doesn't need to be literal, like religion, as it can be seen as a purely philosophical hypothesis.