Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>
1) Why do you see theories proved by observational evidence automatically correct?[/b]
I don't.

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>
2) When you do an experiment do you take in every factor into consideration? I mean every factor that can possibly change a situation.[/b]
No.

Originally posted by Yume
3) If someone else does an experiment how can you be sure they did not have errors even with repeated trials?
I can't.

<!--QuoteBegin-Yume@
4) Why do you dismiss the possibility of Creationism even though it is possible?
I don't.

<!--QuoteBegin-Yume
I do not want to post evidence against something that I see as possible. Even though isn't what I believe to be most possible disproving it for the sake of debate just doesn't seem worth it right now. I owe a lot to The Superstring Theory. It has saved me many times in different discussions. I could combine it with theism, but really I do not feel like it. This topic fun as it is there is a point I will go to. I actually also know more proving \"The Big Bang\", but like I said that is really not the direction I feel like heading.
Originally posted by Yume
I know more ideas than I'd like to, but that is another story. I know a man who said that religious leaders and world renouned scientists are working together and debating on how our existence came to be just to keep us from his version of how the earth was created.
Sigh. I've had enough of this crap. Go away.