[Krsqk]

Having only skimmed the FAQ, I did find some interesting quotes.

This about "aged creation":

The hypothesis is unfalsifiable, and therefore not a scientific one (see the section on the scientific method)

Radiocarbon (C-14) dating (and applicable to all methods of dating):

This process is assumed to be in equilibrium with the decay of C-14 throughout the biosphere...

Not to mention that it's assumed to have always been present in the same concentration.

Mutations as mechanism:

So in evolutionary theory, even though the occurrence of a particular mutation is random, the overall effect of improved adaptation to the environment over time is not.

Isn't the retention of acquired characteristics Lamarckism? And doesn't this assume that mutation results in improvements?

Anyone who says that science "proves" creation is wrong. Creation/religion isn't science. But anyone who says that science "proves" evolution is misinformed about the basic unproven assumptions vital to evolution. See the works of Karl Popper on the philosophy of science and the scientific method (greatly summarized, scientific theories must be testable; anything else is outside the realm of science).

[edits-typos]

[ December 10, 2002, 19:15: Message edited by: Krsqk ]