True unless proven false? Ok. How about I say I believe that the world was created 1000 years ago by a God who planted historical evidence dating back thousands and even millions of years? Tell me why my God is fake and I'll shoot you down. I have to warn you though, I have this book that has all the documentation of his existence and I'll be taking all my evidence from there.
ONLY because you arrogantly presume anyone who doesn't dutifully swallow the big bang, something from nothing, life from non life, macro evolution theories without any question must be a creationist.
No one I know of has seen or carried on a two way conversation with God? Your as bad as stu-PID with your arrogant presumption that anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly embrace every anti-God theory is automatically a TV evangelist.
And so that's what makes evolution and creationism equivalent arguments in your eyes? I only see you spew crap against evolution. You seem very "circumspect" about attacking creationism with similar vigor.
I don't think they are equivalent arguments. You're an idiot liberal Gabby, which means by definition you see only want you want to see.
So then spell it out. Which is the better argument: evolution or creationism? Fine. I have already seen all your arguments against evolution. Now let me see some of your arguments against creationism that I have been willfully ignoring by your account, "seeing only what I want to see." Show me just how "open minded" you are. Please provide the links to these posts of yours that I have been so willfully ignoring.
I see it as "arguments"(as in theories, speculation, conjecture, beliefs, faiths, evidence subject to interpretation...) for two entirely different, yet possibly intertwined, scenarios. I "question" macro evolution, life from non life and something from nothing theories more because I know less about them. And frankly some of them are IMO no less far fetched than creationism. I grew up in church,(as I've admitted previously) I already know all the bible stories.
You don't seem to question the veracity of these "bible stories" here anywhere near as much as you question the scientific evidence supporting evolution, do you? As for the evolution and creationist "arguments," you conceded earlier that they are not equivalent. Which one, then, do you find more compelling, and supported by some (I would say "ample") evidence as compared to none at all?