No evolution/creation debate in Europe

Nonsense. One stems from evidence and the other stems from revealed knowledge. That revealed knowledge is less reliable is attested by the existence of some 4,300 world religious and some 30,000+ Christian denominations. If revealed knowledge was accurate there would be only one religion, upon which all could agree. Nice try, but not all interpretations are of equal explanatory value. Some interpretations spring readily from the facts, others have to be forced. That is the role of creation "science" and other forms of religious apologetics -- to force facts to fit religious belief, no matter how they have to be distorted or twisted, and how many have to simply be ignored, in the process.Science, as it stands today, is a very complex weave of facts and interpretations (theories). If you start to force alternative interpretations where they don't fit, you end up with too many loose threads.As an example, to force the facts to "fit" a young earth, the decay constant if often accelerated by YECers. This ignores the fact that radioactive decay gives off heat, and 4.5 billion years of radioactive decay compressed into 6,000 years would have released enough heat in that short time period to cook the earth.No, some interpretations of the facts simply don't work and no amount of twisting and distortion will make them work.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Have you actually studied this, or did you get it from some creationist website?It sounds like you are referring to a study that radiocarbon dated diamonds, and which found residual C14? Is this the study you are referring to?I'd be happy to explain it to you if that is the case, because you are dead wrong in your claim.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

There is a lot of evidence for descent from ape-like creatures. The fossils made a good enough case in the early parts of the last century, but genetics sealed the deal.There is no scientific case to be made for any other alternative. The only argument against this is religious.And the form of religion known as creation "science" is dedicated to twisting and misrepresenting the facts until they can squeeze them into the required mold of superstition.This super-evolution nonsense is a part of that. Creationists deny that level of evolution when scientists propose it, but to make the silly flood story come our right creation "science" proposes evolution several times faster than what scientists propose, and in one case -- in reverse!But then creation "science" doesn't have to be consistent, as its audience wants to believe, and will accept anything that has the desired outcome. Real scientists, on the other hand, are a bunch of skeptics. Most would like nothing better than to make a name for themselves by overturning some cherished theory.------------And by the way, you still haven't responded to my challenge on Carbon 14 dating in post #78. You said that "...the C14 that should be long gone. We can't just ignore the inconvenient anomalies, you know."Is this the study where diamonds were dated and minimal amounts of C14 were detected?You can't just throw out those one-liners and expect no challenges. Lets see some support for your statement. Because, as above, I think you are following creation "science" instead of real science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.