Do you believe in creation or evolution?

[Alpha]

The ad hominem stuff is weak Gandalf, I therefore apologize to anyone offended by me calling evolution a joke, although I was attacking the substance of the argument itself, rather than persons associated with the argument. If that's your opinion, your are entitled to it. And I have already said I don't believe in the God or Jesus of the bible.

In reply to Fenster, there is a greater potential for uncertainty in the science of past events than there is in the science of present processes.

The scientific approach used by evolutionists to try to construct the past does have a lot in common with modern day CSI. In both cases, there is an attempt to use to use good science to reconstruct the past.

CSI shows try to give us the impression that CSI is all about the facts and that the facts speak for themselves. This is a blatantly false picture of how forensic science works. The facts can't speak at all, let alone for themselves. Rather people interpret the facts according to their assumptions about the past. Basically the gap between circumstantial fact and forensic interference is large, and filled with questionable assumptions.

Take the dingo ate my baby case, Lindy Chamberlian her conviction was based on scientific forensic evidence, interpreted by fallible human beings, which lead to the false reconstruction of the past. Despite these uncertainties and spectacular failures, forensic science and historical science can be useful in helping to investigate the past. Cases can be built primarily on forensic evidence that is sufficient to lead to convictions that match with eye witness accounts or later confessions.

However, CSI is a methodology, not a conclusion. The same forensic approach can be used by creationists, using a different starting point (i,e, different assumptions about the past) to reach a different conclusion from the same facts.

It's usually obvious when a crime has been committed. But CSI teams typically don't just assume that one happened. An investigation will close if suspicious circumstances turn out not to be so i.e there's been no crime. But what about when it comes to rocks and fossils, and even the structure and patterns of living organisms today? There, it's like always assuming that a dead body is always indicative of a crime, evolution and long ages are assumed in advance to be the only reasonable explanation available. CSI leaves open the possibility that a crime didn't cause the crime scene, but evolutionists always assume the rocks and fossils reserve an evolutionary story. The question for them is not so much whether evolution happened, but how.

This is getting a bit long, but timeline is an important part of establishing what happened in a crime. But establishing a timeline based on forensic evidence alone is tricky and fraught with many questionable assumptions. This is the case when CSI teams have decades worth of data showing that their clocks are generally reliable. Many forensic investigators have seen their clocks work, they have been verified by eyewitness reports. they have also seen when and how they fail.

Evolutionists have never seen their clocks work. Ho could they? We haven't been investigating anywhere near long enough to verify million year timelines!
Radiocarbon dating is flawed and carbon dating is only reliable and accurate to around 60,000 years.

I'll just leave a few quick things, I'd ask anyone to look into geology, it's huge jigsaw, but look at coal, granite, strata, basalt columns, mudfloods etc in regards to secondary plutonium halos and how quickly they can be created.

For conspiracy theorists, the elite use National Geographic and the history channel to mind control us and sway the masses. Now National Geographic was owned by 20th century Fox, a mass media corporation, but has now been purchased by Disney. The History channel was already owned by Disney.