Creation vs. Evolution is not a valid opposition.

Its only one method. Seems like it could be reliable. I will have a dig around NASA and other astronomical sites and see what information I can find.Another reason, is that some plasma engineers argue that atomic clocks can become disrupted by electircal discharge and are therefore unreliable.I can't attest to the veracity of this, but that is their claim.See for a comprehensive review of their theories:
holoscience.com | The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE – A sound cosmology for the 21st century
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/ orthodoxies/electric.htm[This message has been edited by FREETHINKER, 03-06-2004]

Maybe God created the first cell, about three and a half billion years ago. Then evolution produced the diversity of life we see around us.Does that take care of your objections?Maybe you are right. Maybe it does. We adapt/evolve througout life--our bodies react and change in dealing with ilness--our brains and muscles adapt and improve. We can mix our DNA with the opposite sex and produce a new being. But at the same time a counter process is taking place namely that in each recreation of a new cell within our bodies the DNA becomes corrupted slightly at the ends--we get old and die.Bacteria breed at an alarming rate and unlike our cells they don't seem to become corrupt and die over a few generations.They can and do adapt to viruses and our medication. They become resistant. Within this quick moving evolution to what extent do we see the creation of new DNA within bacteria that allows them to change int new species or multicellular species?Can this be observed?Remember Lyell said 'The present is the key to the past'. We should be able to see these things happening.Another problem is why we still have bacteria. Why have they not evolved themselves out of existence? Why has their evolution retarded at this simple stage when it is clear they can evolve and adapt?

Why should they? It's a mistake to think of bacteria as primitive. Any living bacillus today is the product of 3.6 billion years of evolution. Adaptation doesn't always lead to complexity. Sometimes simple is better. The reason we have bacteria is because bacteria are successful. What else could live at the scale that they do?

What flavor of anti-darwinian do you profess to be? Or am I supposed to guess?I haven't made identification with any kind of group because it could prejudice discussion. I guess most people here have argued with Creationists and rejected their arguments and have debated evidence with them.I don't want someone else's argument, good or bad, attributed to me unless I claim it for my own.

That works too, I guess. In that case, I'll have to wait until you actually develop the specifics of your argument before replying. Looking forward to it. Maybe you could start by laying out the particulars of your objection to the theory? Please be detailed. What observations and/or observable phenomena contradict evolution?

Well, almost right. There are some viri that are only RNA based. If these are defined as alive then they are an small, but interesting exception.'(let's be careful here, this is off topic if it needs any further discussion)

At your links the 'searchs' didn't produce anything useful on this topic. For such a significant statement you'd have to produce the original research references anywayI would also suggest if you want people to follow along with you that you don't post the home page of such references. We don't have time to read through everything. It is more effective if you both point to the specific page and quote the most relevant paragraph or two.As of right now, I don't have any inclination to believe your statement about how unreliable atomic clocks are. If you want to make a cogent argument on this topic then please open a topic to present the information in more detail.

Good thing you said "I can't attest to the veracity of this". The electric universe people are the nuttiest of the nutty; they originated as radical Velikovskians. See On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis and Velikovsky Made Simple.[This message has been edited by JonF, 03-06-2004]

How about we keep the goalposts in one place for at least a few minutes, hey?Whether Evolutionists are zealots or not is independent of whether Creationists are or not. The behaviours you listed are symptomatic of all Creationist literature and websites, with the exception of looking at the evidence which is notably absent.Care to answer this point before running off on another diversion?If you want to discuss your points on DNA, start a new topic - don't try and derail this one.