They DO exist. Alien life found on meteorite!

Chinese astronomers discovered life on planets in 5000BC.

Your (one) link's geology section focuses mostly on if there could have been a flood, which really doesn't touch on any of the facts/processes I listed. And the radiocarbon dating section basically talks about how "some cases it was wrong," like if all the world's watches correspond to the same time but one is broken and 3 are off time, all the other watches are invalid. Can you respond to the lack of evidence on the site or your beliefs to what I posted prior?

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

I love these discussions. They pretend to be science, but really we are discussing religion. Since none of us can definitively prove how matter first came into being and how it eventually came to appear like it does today, we rely on belief systems. These belief systems require us to select the "facts" that support our view.

The thing that I find so interesting is that those who reject creationism because it is not scientific are blind to the fact that they are some of the most religious folk in the discussion. I find it amusing that someone would reject the information on a site because they read the about section and realize that the author must have a religious bias. How is this not an example of their own religious bias? If a religious person is someone who clings tightly to their belief systems then these people can only be thought of as religious zealots.

The theory of evolution requires as much faith as creationism (some would argue much more). To believe that given sufficient time and chance that mutations would be provide sufficient new information and that similar mutations would eventually become global is really quite a leap of faith. But why is that wrong? Faith is not a bad thing. What is a bad thing is when some unproven facts are rejected as only faith while others are deemed to be irrefutable science.

someone else wrote:

This is getting into ad hominem territory, and that is where I stop. I am not a troll, but I know your ideas about creation scientists make you reject people like me simply because we hold an idea adverse to yours.

I am not insulting you. I am stating that scientific results are VERY frequently doctored, modified, intentionally misleading when the people publishing them have an agenda to push. I am not rejecting you because you hold an idea adverse to mine. I am rejecting your "science" because it is outrageously biased and the individuals publishing it have a lot to gain by misleading people. Creation Scientists are simply looking for information to prove their point of view, unlike scientists that aren't funded by religious organizations or other agenda-pushing organizations. I find their type of "science" to be incredibly unethical and if you know as much about current research as you claim, you should find them to be unethical as well.

another one wrote:

Your (one) link's geology section focuses mostly on if there could have been a flood, which really doesn't touch on any of the facts/processes I listed. And the radiocarbon dating section basically talks about how "some cases it was wrong," like if all the world's watches correspond to the same time but one is broken and 3 are off time, all the other watches are invalid. Can you respond to the lack of evidence on the site or your beliefs to what I posted prior?

See here:

I don't have time to get into it, but I think most scientists agree that radiocarbon dating is wildly inaccurate.

Creation scientists are in search of the truth just like any other scientists. The fact that God has spoken the truth to creation scientists does not invalidate their work.

You make a fair criticism of the way evolution is often presented. "irrefutable science" is an oxymoron after all. That's why Dawkins' overstatement of certainty and evangelical atheism is so annoying. It's plain bad science.

But you seem to imply that the past is absolutely unknowable, and therefore all theories about the past are equally valid. Good science compares theories about the past with observations in the present and can evaluate which is most consistent. While advocates of evolution (like Dawkins) are often sadly lacking in adhering to that unbiased standard, science at least aspires towards truly open-minded evaluation of evidence. In a perfect world, an evolutionist presented with truly compelling evidence of creationism would ultimately be willing to reject evolution. Whereas "Answers in Genesis" explicitly states:

someone else wrote:

Creation scientists are in search of the truth just like any other scientists. The fact that God has spoken the truth to creation scientists does not invalidate their work.

As long as it fits the truth they want, otherwise they're not interested.

someone else wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org

Go to the answers section and find the "Age of the Earth" category. I don't have time to go into a whole different debate on here.

I don't blame you for not wanting to discuss this link. At least they were bright enough to tell you to drop the whole 'moon dust' argument.

5/10.

Half of your title is correct, other half, notsomuch.

Alien life does exist, yet you troll'ed your "proof" with the next sentence.

another one wrote:

Mutations happen all the time. You agree that natural selection happens. Care to explain how evolution doesn't happen?

Natural selection is not the same as evolution.

Aghast wrote:

Well by definition it is biased as it is espousing a particular view point and it attempting to convince readers of that world-view. It is not attempting to present both sides or give general information.

There are numerous inaccuracies/misunderstandings and hand-waving going on it those links you posted. It is bad enough that nobody with 1 pounce of intelligence would feel that what is written is a sound argument.

someone else wrote:

So just because they're creationist, means they're not scientific? That's not biased at all.

I beg to differ, though, in fact, there is a lot of science, and many of the people who run that website have PhDs. in physics and other relevant fields and are practicing scientists.

The same is true of your ilk.

yeawjmfkdlsa; wrote:

5/10.

Half of your title is correct, other half, notsomuch.

Alien life does exist, yet you troll'ed your "proof" with the next sentence.

And your proof is...?

Sorry, meant to type radiometric dating. Most scientists do not believe radiocarbon dating is unreliable, and it corresponds to tree ring data in most cases, strongly bolstering its validity. But even if you're implausibly throwing it out because one Christian link disagrees, there are many other radiometric dating methods that all correspond with each other, like Uranium or Potassium-Argon. One would have to thoroughly disprove all but one technique to destroy the consistent figures and corroboration between methods. You haven't touched on erosion or plate tectonics yet either.

someone else wrote:

No time to explain, just visit these sites that draw all examples and facts from the bible.

Really?! Seriously?!

You make one sh!tty scientist.