Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Recently, creationists have claimed that they have found a proof of 
> creation:

If they have, they're wrong. If nothing else, one piece of evidence does not 
make for "proof", especially if one also claims evolution is "only a theory."

> something to do with a radiation emitted by certain atoms on 
> peace of matter, 

Someone found evidence of radioactive decay of short-life radioactive atoms 
embedded as a physical mark (a ring, to be exact) inside crystals of stone 
that are normally thought to take much longer to solidify than it takes the 
radioactive particles to decay.

The creationist interpretation was "god put them all there at the same 
time", conveniently ignoring the evidence of the Big Bang on which many of 
them also rest arguments for the existence of God.

Other physicists and geologists look at that and go "Huh, that's 
interesting. Someone ought to look further."  Creationists claim success in 
forming a global theory of the existence of the universe based on lack of 
theory to explain one piece of evidence, as usual.

> I was very sleepy at the time of seen this on a sleepless night.

You didn't miss much.

> So, that "proof" as any other theory is only that.

Don't confuse "proof" and "evidence". "Evidence" doesn't lead to "proof" 
without other supporting evidence, which is what science actually provides.

(Note the lack of comment on your beliefs. This comment is about science, 
not belief. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message