Yng, you have some good questions and I admire your scepticism. I just wish you could apply that same scepticism to the creationist propaganda you keep reading.

You’re absolutely right, though. Science doesn't ask ‘why’. I guess this is because ‘why’ is more of a philosophical question than a scientific one. And that’s one of the main problems here, is the wires are getting crossed between science, philosophy, religion. When I’m debating on this topic, I am sticking strictly to science. But others are jumping between science, religion, all sorts of different fields that don’t exactly mix.

I have no problem with religion. But when people (Creationists, now ID proponents) try to promote their views by questioning hard science, hard data, hard FACTS, and confusing the public and using the media as a tool and trying to damage science in kids classrooms (!), one feels compelled to say something. And it’s obvious this movement is driven almost entirely by religious motives. If the theory of gravity contradicted bible teachings, make no mistake, they would be out there fighting that theory tooth and nail, and probably just as convincingly.

There are quibbles with details of evolution, so of course it is never absolute. But as a WHOLE, the theory is, for all practical purposes, unbreakable. Technically of course, it isn’t ‘fact’, but it is recognisable by science as such, and they have pretty high standards about this sort of thing.

It’s good that you are questioning what you have learned, and not just taking what’s presented to you at face value. That’s a valuable skill, and you have an analytical mind, and I respect that. I only hope that you won’t let your faith get in the way of good, sound science.

Radioisotope dating: yeah there have been some odd cases and errors, key word being "some", these are to be expected. Scientists should check every form of dating, and every method is not going to be available all the time. The car example demonstrates this pretty well, one car out of thousands doesn't fit the pattern, but in the end an explanation can be given.

About the "billion-fold" increase: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar01.html Basically, it only applies to a minority of those radio-isotopes which decay producing beta radiation and among them there would normally be no real effect unless almost all the atoms were almost fully stripped.

"Thus, in the process of raising the entire planet earth to the temperature necessary to make 75+ the expected charge state for Rhenium so that it could then quickly decay into Osmium, before the earth cooled, God therefore also must have made the earth gravitationally unbound. The whole planet would simply have exploded into a cloud of plasma which would even yet be expanding into space."

As with the flood explanation, complicated miracles without evidential basis are required in order to explain the deficiencies in creationist explanations. Occam's razor etc.

"These are peer reviewed, its just that the peers are Creationists with Ph.D's, not evolutionists with such."
The whole point of peer review is to open the piece up to criticism by those competent in the field, not to those who agree with you. For the most part, "evolutionists" don't bother trying to poke holes in creationist "theories", they try to poke holes in other scientists' works, develop their own scientific theories and test them.

"That annoys me. This is what I find frustrating about science: it approximates a 'how' answer but never a 'why' answer. "
But you assume that there is a "why" answer. As spendocrat said that is a philosophical question, although I will make the point that almost all of the creationist effort involves attempting to counter the scientific "how" in order to protect their own "why". Ideological groups not interested in finding the truth aren't known for good (or honest) science.

YngNLuvnIt stated that creationsits documents are peer-reviewed by creationist with PhD's. If creationists wanted to get their articles accepted as science (as they state) they should submit them to scientific journals for peer review. They might as well get their families to review the articles for all the credibility that these journals have in the scientific community.

Also in another posting YngNLuvnIt wrote about the whys of evolution, e.g. "Natural selection: organisms change to better adapt to their environments, for their survival, etc". This shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary processes. Natural selection is the change in a population over time because of changes in the environment and the ability of organisms to resist those changes and reproduce. Thus passing on any advantages that the organisms may have to their offspring. Can I suggest that you read Gould, Dawkins or Mayr or any secondary school biology textbook to get a better understanding of the processes

Hey, go easy on Yng, ip's (see age-old debate on gender neutral word substitute for 'he or she') the smartist anti-evolutionist here. Unlike the rest, Yng has actually paid attention to what we've said, sat back and reformulated ip's argument accordingly. Yng has raised interesting and thoughtful (some less than others) questions and explained ip's position and feelings regarding the topic quite convincingly.

Having said that of course, one can't deny the futility in questioning something as solid as evolution. Still, I learned at least that not ALL creationists are stubborn, ignorant, sneaky, dogmatic, irrational fools. Most, but not all.

spendocrat,
Your faith in evolution has excluded you from sound unbiased research.
To establish a theory you must accept a paradigm, and your paradigm is a belief that evolution is sound science. Yet you deride YngNLuvnIt, for his faith but fall into the same ditch.

Quote, "I only hope that you won’t let your faith get in the way of good, sound science. There are quibbles with details of evolution, so of course it is never absolute. But as a WHOLE, the theory is, for all practical purposes, unbreakable."

Are you so dogmatic and self-assured? Sound like a brainwashed predetermined position. If YngNLuvnIt wishes to enter a field of science he has an open mind excellent for research. Faith does not restrict advancement in science it explores it. I worked for 12 years under one of Australia’s leading industrial chemists. He was a prolific author of school science textbooks. His Christian faith enhanced his wonderment of the chemical world

Science = repeatable testable

Can you 'test repeatedly' the evolution of one species into another ?

Answer "no"

Has anyone ever witnessed the transformation of one species onto another ?

Don't think so.

hence.. it is not science but faith and pure conjecture.

cheers to all.