[Coyoteman]

Evolutionism, in spite of its many false predictions, tautolical methods, and myriad scandalous frauds, has a life of its own. In many places it operates outside of the scientific method, and is become more of a philosophy, a religion, than a science.

Its more vocal adherents augment that perception by their infantile behavior.

For consideration as a valid science, I would place Evolutionism at least a few steps below Cold Fusion, and perhaps one step above its stepchild, Environmentalism.

I don't have the time or inclination to discuss these things in detail.

If you are sincere, and really wish to explore the facts mitigating against Evolutionism, and to entertain them as things to consider by a thinking person with an open mind, then there are much better and more technical sources than yours truly, and you seem perfectly capable of conducting the research and compiling the results without my help.

I did half of my six years of graduate school in evolution and closely related fields.

I know the facts of evolution, and I have conducted the research and compiled the results without your help.

The arguments we see on these threads against evolution are almost always from religion (apologetics), and they generally pervert what evolution actually says, and misrepresent the scientific method.

For example, those who need to find evidence for a young earth, pervert the radiocarbon dating technique by one of several methods, including arbitrarily changing the rate of beta decay, claiming (falsely) that there is no accounting for atmospheric variation in C14, claiming that the method only extends back some 4,000 (or 7,000) years, etc. These claims ignore established science because the proponents have to discredit the method because they cannot abide by the results!

There are still a few scientists left on this website. Until banned, we still can call BS on anti-science nonsense.

You ask for an open mind? I have found far more open minded folks among scientists than creationists. Scientists say, "Show me the evidence." Creationists say, "My mind is made up; I won't believe your evidence no matter what you show me." Now where is the open mind?

[Creationist]

The Carbon-14 age estimating method is, at best, only useful for estimating the age of things that are thousands of years old, not millions or billions. And it does not work on rocks or thoroughly mineralized fossils; it is only useful for relatively well-preserved organic materials such as cloth, wood, and other non-fossilized materials. Other methods must be used to estimate the age of rocks and minerals. Two of the most widely-known systems are the potassium-argon method and the uranium-lead method.

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/isochrons2.html

[Westbrook]

> the proponents have to discredit the method because they
> cannot abide by the results!

This correctly characterizes my impression of Evolutionists.

> I have found far more open minded folks among scientists
> than creationists.

I venture that depends upon what facts their world view predisposes their minds to be open to.

Neither party can say that ALL the visible, measureable evidence weighs on their side.

Neither party can say that their methodologies are the only ones capable of revealing the Truth about Origins.

At that point, the conjectures become based on Faith in the World View of the Faithful.

Just because you and your professors call Evolutionism Science does not mean that it is.

The first apology I ever heard about Evolutionism was, "That's religion, but this is science."

That seems to be their best apology, because, when confronted with scientific facts, observed, measured, and categorized by the five senses, at debates and in technical forums, they resort to the above statement followed by the schoolyard bully act.

.