In a previous thread I wrote:

THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS WHAT SCIENTISTS WHO WANT TO KEEP THEIR JOBS AND RESEARCH GRANTS ARE PREPARED TO SAY IN PUBLIC.

Another poster replied:

"and of course.. origin of life by EVOLUTION is absolutely true, and all scientists who rely on funding and grants.. who espouse this scientific orthodoxy are doing so out of the purity of their objective hearts"

I stand by my original comment.

But in the case of evolution the situation is different. There is plenty of funding available for scientists who want to falsify evolution. The so-called "Institute of Creation Research (ICR)," for one, seems to have no lack of funds. See:

http://www.icr.org/

There is even a well-funded creation museum.

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

There are strong incentives for scientists to falsify evolution IF THEY CAN. Despite this none of the evolution antagonists have in living memory produced scientific evidence that's worth a damn.

Meanwhile the evidence for evolution continues to accumulate and the pace is accelerating. The past decade has seen a revolution in our understanding of evolution. We have even observed the process of speciation under way. (Among cichlids in Lake Victoria to give one example).

Are there still gaps in the theory?

Yes there are. The greatest conundrum is terrestrial biogenesis. Speculations abound but we really don't yet know just how life on Earth kicked off.

But once life got started, 3.5 billion years ago or more, it evolved. That's the way the evidence points.

If you guys really think there's a conspiracy to cover up evidence that would falsify evolution then you must believe institutions like the Creation Museum are part of it. Else surely by now that would have produced something.

So tell me, how does the great evolution cover-up conspiracy work?

Who is involved and what is their motive?

The Catholics at least have decided that they're not going to have another Galileo embarrassment.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp

Steve Steve :)

'evidence worth a damn'...? thats a rather speculative and subjective assessment.

You would have to look rather closely at a specific aspect of the debate, and follow the dialogue between the parties, looking at the claims.. counter claims.. and refutations.

Taking it wider than one bite at a time will just end up in information overload and confusion will certainly reign.

Here is but one example: (from the ICR website)

>>Field Research. Example: measurements of selected isotopic ratios for 67 elements in Grand Canyon basalts (see Isotope and Trace Element Analysis of Hypersthene-Normative Basalts From the Quaternary of Uinkaret Plateau, Western Grand Canyon, Arizona, by Steven A. Austin)<<

OR...

>>Analytical Research. Example: analytical review of helium concentrations in the atmosphere as an indicator of a young earth. (See The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere; a study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere, by Larry Vardiman.)<<

Now.. to make the discussion meaningful, one needs to follow through on what they are seeking to claim, and then look for refutations etc.

I've followed one through.. and it was a bit of a laugh, specially where the Creationists were misrepresented abysmally, by the Evolutionist.
Happy searching.

STEVE...here is one.

THE RELEVANCE OF Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd AND Pb-Pb ISOTOPE SYSTEMATICS TO ELUCIDATION OF THE GENESIS AND HISTORY OF RECENT ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR RADIOISOTOPIC DATING

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/ICCMt_Ngauruhoe-AAS.pdf

Now..for your claims "no evidence worth a damn" to be true, you might like to explore the specific refutation to this paper ?

OR...

MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS:
CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf

But right now.. I am rapidly evolving into a rather lumpy and unsightly object.. due to massive mosquito attack.. (its stinking hot and all the windows are open) so..I'll devolve to the other room where I have more protection :)
cheers.

Steven get over it,the evidence of evolution is overwhelming.The evidence for God is underwhelming.We just have to grow up and face the reality that mummy and daddy cannot protect us from our own mortality.Enjoy the moment since our own vainety of yearning the eternal existence in bliss,can be our own worst enemy.

Once the memory is gone,nothing matters.God must be a real bastard to take recognition of ones spouse of 50yrs via alzhiemers disease.

BOAZ,

There was a time many decades ago when I thought it was worthwhile arguing with creationists. I took a lot of trouble to dissect their pseudo-science.

Slowly it dawned on me that no matter what evidence I presented I was not going to convince anyone. So I stopped bothering. Life is too short to waste it debunking every cranky theory.

However, just this once, I'm going to make an exception of sorts for you. Let's consider the Baumgardner et al paper on C14 dating first.

No, I'm NOT going to give you the answer.

I'm going to go ONE BETTER.

I am CHALLENGING you to find the answer for yourself.

I assure you an answer exists.

I was first confronted with this thesis about a year ago. Two possible explanations occurred to me. One turned out to be quite wrong. The other was mostly right though I'd missed a few details.

How did I discover the correct answer?

By phoning a few REAL scientists.

You may not know any real scientists. You could start by looking for one here:

http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/

I suggest that you phone rather than email.

Good luck in your quest.

I'm sure you can do it.

Another thing BOAZ

AVOID THE FALSE DICHOTOMY.

It is NOT a case of:

--either I reject evolution

OR

--I cease being a Christian.

Many Christians have no difficulty with evolution. I could give you at least half a dozen ways of reconciling evolution with Christianity.

ARJAY,

I am, if not an actual atheist, a very sceptical agnostic. As my post made clear, I do not doubt that evolution is correct.

I therefore don't understand the point of your post.

Please explain

Steve you waste your time, all the followers of all the Gods will maintain their views.
That the God they follow is the only one, that he/she created the world.
That those who follow no God are to be converted and those who follow the wrong one? some times hated sometimes killed sometimes ignored.
And that man must remain prisoner to a fable we once needed but no longer do.