[metmom]

Science is not in the business of proof (see the definitions on my FR home page). Science deals with evidence. Science makes no attempt to disprove gods. Science deals with the natural world.

Then why do scientists take it on themselves to tell creationists they are wrong?

Wrong based on what?

[Just mythoughts]

Then why do scientists take it on themselves to tell creationists they are wrong? Wrong based on what?

I thought evidence was proof. So the objective appears not to be evidence of proof or proof of evidence. Rather it is the process by which is acceptable to *deal* with said evidence.

[allmendream]

Science deals with evidence not proof. Science deals with the natural world.

You ask how scientists take it on themselves to tell creationists they are wrong, and ask “Wrong based on what?”

You answered your own question by the quotes you included. Wrong based upon evidence in the natural world.

The evidence of the natural world shows that predictions based upon a model of an ancient earth and development and differentiation of life forms allows one to explain and predict natural phenomena. Predictions based upon the model of a young earth and the near simultaneous creation of and contemporaneousness of all species lead nowhere.