You Geometry people know what Postulates don't have to be proven right?

Question

In Geometry Postulates don't have to proven, but theorems do. Theorems can be proven by other theorems, defined terms, and undefined terms. This is exactly like evolutionism and Creationism, isn't it? Evolutionism is a postulate, there is no proof for it. Creationism has tons of proof backing it up, making it a theorem. Why do people agree with something that has no proof instead of something that has 6,000 years behind it to back it up.

Daryl yes I did write this question by myself.

Novangelis -- first my question isn't "illogic!" I am applying science and math together, therefore, by doing that it isn't considered illogical. Did you know that Hindus, Buddists, Muslims, Roman Catholics, Jewish, Eastern Orthodox, and Christians believe in Creationism? So you have the countries China, India, Israel, Russia, all of Europe, South and Central America, Australia, Far East countries, and Africa against your theory. Creationists are idiots? We have the whole world backing us up. What do you have? NOTHING! A few messed up scientists.

Answer 1

I agree with you totally! Creation does not have to be proven, yet evolution does. Evolutionists have been trying to prove it for years, yet to no avail. Their carbon dating has errors (see Mt. St. Helen) and they have never proven the "missing link" that tied man to monkey. The evolution theory has lots of holes. Even Darwin said if you look at Bees you can throw the whole theory out. But man doesn't want to look to God, so he has to find something else, even if he can't prove it. Good Job!!

Novangel-Fossils are not proof that evolution is fact. Carbon dating is known to make mistakes. Carbon dating has made a 20 year old murder to a 400 year old Indian Woman. We know Mount Saint Helen erupted in 1980, yet carbon dating made the petrified forrest surrounding Mt St Helen over 1 million years old. Darwin was angry at the Church when he thought this idea up, man ran with it. Just because a lot of scientists believe this theory, doesn't make it so. Many scientists are creationists also. Both are educated scientists, which is right?

Answer 2

The term postulate indicates a statement or assumption that is agreed by everyone to be so obvious or self-evident that no proof is necessary.

A proof is a carefully built up argument, based on the postulates.

Natural philosophy (science) does not use the postulate/proof model, but the hypothesis/theory model. Just for fun, I'll run with your misapplication.

Creationism is hardly widely accepted, therefore it cannot be a postulate. Creationism has no logic behind it, therefore there is no proof.

I would like to propose a corollary:
Creationists are idiots.

My question is, is this a postulate, or using your question's illogic, is it a proof?

Addendum:
Evolution is PROVEN by the world. The geologic and fossil record, Darwin's finches, moths during the Industrial Revolution, the homeobox genes, and more FACTS than could fill a thousand Bibles.

Hindus do not believe in your Creationism. They place the age of the universe in billions of years. Catholic Creationism merely states that God created the Universe. Your version of Creationism is directly opposed by the Doctrine of Transformism which is not in conflict with the Bible.

China has expended enormous energy demonstating itself as the cradle of evolution. Russia preferred Lamarkian evolution to Darwinism since it fit Communist doctrine, but that era is over.

If you took one tenth the energy that you apply to forcing facts to fit a doctrine into critical evaluation, you'd see I'm right.

Second addendum:
No true scientist can defend Creationism. There are hypotheses to test, the definition of the scientific method. You take the Bible and use is as the proof. You then use the limits and errors of science and call them proof. The fact that carbon dating has errors is meaningless. Carbon dating might work as far back as 50,000 years. The fact that one technique gave inaccurate values in one condition does not disprove the overall technique. You spend a lot of times looking for exceptions and claiming they prove rules. You ignore the fact the the Bible actually contradicts itself in places, and, taken literally, cannot explain the world as it is. I would like to hear an explanation why if you took two of every living land animal, you could not get them into the volume of the Ark if you used a blender.

Answer 3

Wow.... And you wrote that "question" all on your own, did you?