Rick wrote:
...stuff deleted

Therein lies the problem, Evolutionism is based on an underlying
philosophy called Uniformatarianism, not a scientific method at
all.
Just the assumtion that processes follow one after the other. Makes
understanding thing much easier. The only problem is that the
evidence
does not bare this out. The uniformatarian scientist just went out
and
found info that supported there position, and ignored info that did
not. Sort of like picking yourself up by your boot straps. And
hence
uniformatarianism has fallen into disrepute in many quarters, and
the
superstructure of evolution abandoned by many scientist.


No, it isn't. Evolution is, once again, scientific theory. More
importantly, it is a unifying theory which has been supported by
many, a
great many, of scientific disciplines. This includes the following:

- anthropology
- geology
- genetics
- biology, biochemistry, and all other bio sciences
- chemistry

And the list goes on.

Your "uniformatiarian scientist" does not exist. You may have some
religious zealot making up words for scientists, but there isn't any
branch, individual, nor philosophy that fits this description.

Another philosophy has become more acceptable recently in the
scientific community called Catastrophism. This basically says that
cataclismic events occurred in the course of history that
completely
changed the course of history. Radical events and elements have
been
injected into the course of history that have determined where we
are
today. These events would make following any uniform record
impossible.
Hence though the dinosaur records are interesting, they are not
complete, and cannot be relied on for scientific information. Even
such
test procedures as C-14 dating etc would not be considered
reliable.


I see. Since it is convenient, we ignore scientific evidence and say,

"it is interesting." Since you seem incapable of understanding the
basics of these fields, mythology is much more meaningful for you.
How
pathetic.

I remember reading one of these pamphlets which claimed that they
carbon
dated a live insect and the result was wildly inaccurate. But, you
should know that you cannot get an accurate C-14 result on a live
animal. This does not invalidate carbon dating, it merely proves that

the indviduals involved attempted to use "spin" to convince the
unwitting of their political agenda.

Rick

Sorry Rick, you stepped in it this time, and it really stinks. Googled
Uniformatarian, and came up with pages. Just a few,

http://tinyurl.com/68rnd
http://tinyurl.com/4967j
http://tinyurl.com/4k4a7
http://tinyurl.com/5bood
http://tinyurl.com/4sb3v
http://tinyurl.com/6omh8
http://tinyurl.com/67bqr
http://tinyurl.com/5k9rg
http://tinyurl.com/4ypon

Our motto is "Truth In Science". The truth of the matter about C/1999
H1 (Lee) is that nobody can project its path, and that the observed
rapid increase in brightness in connection with the officially supplied
orbital modifications provide a strong indication that it's going to
progressively bend inwards towards the orbital plane of Earth. We are
saying that all possibilities should be considered; now!

In fact it is talked about by many scientist, including the list you
made above. Some Christian, some non-Christian, from all specialties,
Past and present. The historian admitted that Darwinism is based on the
big U. The last quoted section was from an astronomer, who says that
all possibilities should be considered.

Nice try with your buffoonery, better luck next time. TnT