Both or neither.

quote:

---

Why can't anything that eaches the young earth theory, or the global flood theory, ect ( all legit theories), be taught in science class?

---

Because your premise is wrong: they're not legit theories. Scientifically, they're complete rubbish. That by itself doesn't mean they can't be taught in science classes (at least constitutionally). What matters is that people only advocate them because of religious motivation. Since they have no nonreligious support, and represent a specific set of religious beliefs, teaching them (not to be confused with teaching about them) represents a constitutionally forbidden exercise of state power in favor of a particular religion.

quote:

---

If they're is a 48%, a 30%, a 2%, and a 20% it is still a majority.

---

No, that's a plurality.

quote:

---

There is a legit arguement for all of those. ( young earth, global flood theory, ect) How do YOU think they are rubbish. probably becauuse you don't agree with them!

---

No, I don't think they're rubbish because I disagree with them -- there are lots of things that I disagree with that I can see rational reasons for accepting. They're rubbish not because they're theories that are wrong, but because they aren't even theories. There's no model that connects the creationist claims to the observed data. Nowhere in YEC is there a coherent, consistent theory that is used to explain a range of data. What creationists offer is at best a bunch of ad hoc explanations that frequently contradict one another; the rest of the time they don't offer anything at all -- they just ignore the data. That's true of the bulk of the data in my own field. Creationism simply has no explanantion for it, and ignores it. I find it impossible to accord much respect to "theories" that resolutely turn their back on reality.

quote:

---

Are you saying that there is no way, in your mind, that God could have made everything you see today?

---

No, I'm saying that the evidence indicates that if God made everything, he did so using natural means, at least as a general rule.

quote:

---

Just because it doesn't meet the almighty SFS's standards for being a scientific theory doesn't make it not a possiblity.

---

Why the sarcasm? There's nothing special about my standards -- creationists make no effort at all to explain a lot of scientific data. You don't have to have very high standards to conclude that a theory that doesn't exist isn't much of a theory. There is no creationist theory of genetics, for example.

quote:

---

When referring to the observed data, are you also referring to radio-carbon-dating?

---

Not particularly. Very little of interest to evolution can be dated with radiocarbon dating.

quote:

---

Is that process, along with all/most of all of the other 'information' you speak of that has been gathered, not accurate or reliable depending of the situation?

---

I don't know what you're asking here. Radiodating, of all types, has its limitations, but they're pretty well understood, and within those limitations it is quite accurate. I'm mostly talking about genetic data, however, which has little to do with radiodating.

quote:

---

I would also LOVE to here one of these "ad hoc explainations" that "frequently contradict one another".

---

The Flood was:
a) a wild, raging chaos that mixed and sorted large amounts of solid material and sloshed it all over the place, and
b) so gentle that separate layers of salt and fresh water were preserved throughout it.