[Dimensio]

And for you to say their claims are true you must demonstrate this.

I say that their claims are, thus far, the best explanation for given observations. You are attempting to hold me to claims that I have not made.

However, you have already stated that it can't be demonstrated.

I have stated that the claims cannot be proven, like all claims in science. However, there is substantial evidence supporting the claims.

So what do you call believing something that hasn't been proven?

That depends on the "something" in question, and the evidence presented for it.

And, why should it be allowed to be taught as truth?

How do you believe that it should be taught?

[taxesareforever]

I say that their claims are, thus far, the best explanation for given observations.

I wonder how many people would be in prison if "best explanation" was the deciding data used to convict someone. I have stated that the claims cannot be proven, like all claims in science.

I disagree with you. There are some claims in science which can be proven. How about a fossil? Science says it is a remnant from the past. That can be proven. Science says that the planets orbit the earth. That can be proven. How do you believe that it should be taught?

I believe it shouldn't be taught. I thought education was about teaching truths. If it isn't, then many claims could be pushed as "best explanation" and taught as if truth. Why are those who believe in the Biblical account of creation and the science that backs it up as "best explanation" considered wackos and their science considered flawed? You know why and so do I. Wouldn't want Satan's lie to be trampled on.