Creationism Vs Evolution

ZOMG RANT ALERT

It sickens me how many people in this country don't believe in evolution.  I heard a statistic that it's around half, but I doubt it's that many.  Science is about rational thought and testable ideas and experiments.  Rejecting the scientific theory of the origin of the human race is like not believing in friction, saying something like that it's god's will that things don't move infinitley.  Even though most fundamental scientific principles are proved indirectly at first (like the spherical nature of the earth), when we are able to directly observe it, we are right because it has been tested indirectly so much.  Religious extremists dismiss evidence like fossils as "tricks by god to test our faith" or something like that.  I bet if someone took a born again christian or another religious extremist in a time machine back 65 million years ago, observed dinosaurs, and returned, they would still reject their direct observations as "hethanistic trickery" or something like that.  Courts have ruled in some places that scientific arguments in favor of creationism can be taught in public schools, what will they have to show?  This intelligent design theory they yammer about is nothing more than pseudoscience, and a lazy underestimation of the power and magnitude biodiversity, natural selection, and time can accomplish.

>>83
"There is too much we don't currently understand to rule out the possibility of invisible pink unicorns.
Nothing in theoretical physics directly negates the possibility of invisible pink unicorns."

Yes, you are exactly correct.  In fact, they must exist inside our own universe somewhere within some other hubble volume, if not in this one.  However, I suspect you were just talking about whether they exist on our planet.  A lack of evidence for something is not contrary evidence.  You forget that there is a world of difference between not believing in something and believing that something does not exist.

For instance - say I know a girl named Melissa, but not very well.  I don't know whether she has any dogs.  At this point, I shouldn't assume that she has dogs for no reason, so I would not believe that she has dogs.  However, I also would have no reason to be sure that she has no dogs, so I wouldn't believe that they don't exist - believing in something's non-existence without evidence is not much better than beleiving in something's existence without evidence.  This is why I don't respect athiests much more than theists.

Now, as far as the unicorns go... yes, you'd be a fool to believe that they exist on earth with no evidence.  However, you wouldn't be much better to go around supporting their non-existence with no evidence of that, either; although, admittedly, it seems a more likely case.