[PeaceBeWithYou]

Whatever happened to a "just the facts" approach? There is no need to attack the credentials of the researcher, can they not refute with facts? Attacking the researcher is a sure sign that their facts are weak or non-existant, and that is the realm of faith and/or politics, not science.

Evolution is a theory that has been searching for facts to back it up since day one. How many theories are there that started out with zero facts, zero data? If Darwin had named his theory Adaptation, which most of it actually is, there would be no shortage of facts then or now to back it up.

[Dinsdale]

The fossil record is a fact.

Predictions made about fossils that have not been dug up yet are testable and have been tested.

The theory of evolution predates understanding of DNA. DNA data backs the theory of evolution. Pedictions were made (e.g. related species like humans and chimps will share most of their genome), these predictions were tested and are true.

The apparent relation of similar species is also data and backs the theory of evolution.

[Shooter 2.5]

I read an article that the man, who found the rocks in the cave that showed man fighting with dinosaurs, had scratched out the scenes with his son. I guess that doesn't make interesting reading.

The same thing with the pyramids. When a bunch of "experts' can't figure out how it was done, they have to come up with a mystical explaination to explain their inadequacies.

[Dinsdale]

Also researchers have a history. Anybody driving around with a bumper sticker stating 'God said it, I believe it, that settles it' does not have an open mind. They are not even making scientific statements. Show me a testable prediction based on flood geology?

Think of it this way. Would you invest in a project of someone with a hisory of promoting sand to gold machines or perpetual motion?