You can decide whatever you want, that's your 1st Amendment right. And the people at creationsafaris, etc. have the right to post anything they want. I don't dipute that. As someone who does have a reasonable science education, I (and others) also have the right to point out where they are mistaken.
Now quark, no those aren't the only place I'm getting information, however having consumed a lot of stuff I tend to go to creationsafaris... what is it you have a problem with?
The blatant distortion of the truth targeted at people with a lack of scientific understanding is what I have a problem with. Quoting technical articles to laypersons is useless unless it is done in the context that was intended.
Now I know you guys dismiss everything right away, but don't assume anything out of context.
I don't dismiss anything right away, but there has to be some scientific validity to an idea for it gain acceptance in the scientific community. The science on these sites is just plain terrible. Repeatedly, over and over again, you see arguments on these sites like "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible" or "mutations cannot add genetic information" or "evidence exists that humans and dinosaurs coexisted", things which are blatantly untrue.
So the "it ain't true just because it's on the internet", would you be referring to all those articles?
No I'm referring to articles that distort or ignore the findings of mainstream science. This is not limited to evolution - there are cranks in almost every field of science. If someone is pitching against the scientific "establishment" or that their claims are being "suppressed", chances are better than not that there's no real substance to them.
Let people way the evidence and common sense of things and make up their own minds, instead of pushing this as "facts" that constantly get changed... how many ideas about the solar system have been completely changed this year?
I do encourage people to weigh evidence and use common sense, but you also have to make sure you're getting accurate information. Creationist websites are notorious for misquoting the conclusions of scientists. As far as facts changing, well, theories do have to refine themselves as information changes, but this usually is a modification, not an overhaul of a whole theory. In the example you gave, yes, many new bodies have been found in the outer solar system; this doesn't change the basic understanding of how it works, it only improves it.
As for what biologists and geologists (and other scientists) really think, who are almost 100% unified in their acknowledgement of evolution , just about any creationist objection to evolution is answered here:
This link actually quotes cited science articles in their intended context, that's the crucial difference.
your reply confirms exactly what I said.. which is that you dismiss everything that disagrees with you without even looking at it... all your criticisms of creationsafaris might be a little more well received if they were directed at Dr. Dino or something, but like I said... creation safaris gives you the links to all the articles they talk about.. I'm not going to reitterate because you clearly have your blinders on and that's fine... as I said, everyone can make up their mind.
as for "new bodies", that isn't what I was talking about in the universe.. I'm talking about the activity constantly being discovered in places that were believed to be old and dead... they're even having to rethink comets after Deep Impact... discovering a "new body" is a little different than the constant story of "puzzling" discoveries about planets and moons all over the place... but like I said, I'm not here to debate you guys on the information.. just providing a couple links, I just couldn't help but respond to that "finding new bodies" business, because that's not a clear representation of all the discoveries of the past year and past couple months.