Yes I do. Your abilities shine through in your posting history. Your knowledge of science struggles to reach the level "rudimentary" yet you have neither the humility nor the wisdom to accept that.
It is you and others who think evolution is a science like biology, chemistry, physics, building, mechanics, learning etc.
Professing themselves wise they became fools. Romans 1:22
Irrelevant scripture.
.Post 968 fossils do not prove evolution
Science does not deal in proof. Science deals in evidence. The evidence of the fossil record overwhelmingly supports evolution, along with many other forms of cross-correlating evidence.
, stalactites do not take thousands of years, moon receding away from the planet would have the land flooded twice a day millions of years ago, magnetic field loosing strength the earth would have to strong a field to support life, sun is shrinking would have been to hot to support life millions of years ago. Now I know all of you freolvutionist [sic] believe that these phenomena all fluctuate so that the decay rates of these are not a constant yet you foolishly believe that atomic decay has been constant.
Oh dear, a set of arguments so woefully ignorant and wrong-headed that even websites like the arch-YEC site "Answers in Genesis" say that they are fallacies and should not be used. Buy a clue. We have evidence for the fluctuating phenomena (that the fluctuations are real). In many cases we understand the physical mechanisms that cause fluctuation. For example the ocean floor near the transoceanic ridges is magnetically striped; this allows us to see past magnetic reversals in the new ocean floor created in the last few million years. Astronomical observations that give us consistent results tell us that atomic decay rates are constant. For example we can see the rate of decay of isotopes in close supernovae such as SN1987A, whose distance has been calculated using simple trigonometry at 170,000 light years. That indicates that decay rates 170,000 years ago were the same as they are now. Other much more distant supernovae show the same rates. Recent decay rates of Carbon 14 have been calibrated using tree-rings, varves, and archaeological inferences. In every case the assumption that decay-rates are constant is borne out by consistent results, even when different methods are used. If decay rates had been varying these methods would not even seem to work. Others have posted several articles (including articles from Christian websites) explaining radiometric decay in this thread, and debunking the oft-repeated creationist lies about it.
Incidentally you are being inconsistent. In your first paragraph you acknowledged that biology, chemistry, physics are sciences. Yet then you proceed to present a set of ignorant young-earth arguments which if true would invalidate the whole of atomic physics, astronomy, zoology, genetics, cosmology, astronomy, archeology etc. There would essentially be no science left if YEC were true. Yet, without a single successful prediction to YECs name, somehow we are expected to junk the whole of science in order to fit in with the expected results of a myth written by nomadic goatherds.
Science is not about acquiring knowledge about the world science is the state or fact of knowing knowledge whether you want to except [sic] it or not look it up in a dictionary. Not the Internet, try one that is older also with the original meaning, not the new and improved meaning.
You want to use archaic word meanings (and good luck in finding one that matches your contention) that's fine by me. I'll use the modern meaning, that is actually used by real, practicing scientists, not an ignoramus who shares his ignorance of science with us all.