I do not like dictionary definitions in a discussion of science - they lack the nuance and focus needed

I tend to 'Popperian' when I discuss science

I read Principia and Principia Mathematica(I thought the second was part of a series - jeez, I kept thinking why didn't Readers Digest condense these) in my youth (I was pretty bored in high school and had already read all 3 encyclopediae in the library) and have no desire to do so again. Newton used 'axiom' and 'law' interchangeably - in other words its truth was taken for granted.

Interestingly enough, those who point out evidence concerning evolution do not claim it proves or disproves creationism. Only creationists claim that. It is only creationists who argue that a creator would not allow evolution. Again, that belief is not testable.

Gotta disagree with you on that one. steven woodman argues that science disproves Creationism in post 33 and I think many would agree. There are different strains of Creationsim, but certainly if you consider the one positing that the Earth is 6,000 years old, it seems mutually exclusive with the Earth being 4.5 billion years old, carbon dating showing rocks which are millions of years old, a Cambrian explosion millions of years ago, etc. Similarly, evolution seems to directly contradict the story of Noah's Ark. They can't both be true, can they? So it seems to me that if you accept the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old, you can't believe in carbon dating or evolution, and vice versa.

There are also those who think that God created the universe and the Earth billions of years ago and set up the laws of physics and maybe even creates occasional Big Bangs. I can't see any contradiction there.

VernonDozier, I am going to use you as a classic example of assumption and ignorance perpetuated by misconception passed down from generations to generations. Don't take it personal, because it is not towards you, it is that you just fit the model of many.

First, you are using the Judean-Christian form of belief to generalize the position of those that subscribe to Creation. When there's thousands of other religion beliefs which subscribe to the concept of Creation.
Second, and most disturbing. Do you know where that number of 6000 years came from?
Do a little investigation and you'll know that it was an ill attempt by some to explain what they didn't know, in an era when it was common for knowledgeable gentlemen to speculate about such things, filling in what could not be found in their Sacred Sources.
It sounded logical at that time and it continued until today, when many think that in order to believe in the Bible they need to adhere to such precepts.

Again VernonDozier, it is not my intention to offend you. Prove that you can take a comment by its face value.

And for those that are more than eager to jump to conclusions quickly, I would like to point that many, if not all of the sciences and disciplines which we rely on, today, so heavily, come from men and woman with a firm belief in God and they tried to prove what they thought as sacred. It is only, today, that a great abyss is preached between belief and science. Even in the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin was careful not to go beyond what he couldn't see. And someone can argue that the book is not even about The Origin of Species, which certainly doesn't say.
I recommend an easy reading book, titled: A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson; if you would like to learn more about how some of these men came to the knowledge that, we take for granted today.

>No offense taken since I didn't say anything that was ignorant

As I ask you, do you now how that main stream 6000 year concept came to be?
If you knew, this comment: " This strain seems completely incompatible with evolution and carbon dating to me. I don't see how they can both be true." would have never been formulated.

Gotta disagree with you on that one. steven woodman argues that science disproves Creationism in post 33 and I think many would agree.