Debate - Ongoing controversy, the EvC question

I am new to posting on this forum, but I have been reading it for a couple of weeks. Some of you are right, this debate will eventually be ended but not how you seem to think. It will not end with evolution triumphing, but with God triumphing. Anyone who says that Christians can't be objective scientists doesn't know what science is. Science depends upon certain things being true. If nothing is true, then science is meaningless because nothing can be measured, and even if it could be measured, the measurements would have no meaning. The only way science can work is with God creating everything. Many of the great scientists were either Christians or came to the conclusion that God must exist (Newton, Galileo, Einstein etc.). Also the Catholic Church hasn't really fit the Biblical definition of Christianity since the council of Nicaea so using Galileo as an example of Christians fighting science doesn't work.

You want some evidence that can be used to prove evolutionists throw away evidence that doesn't fit? How about the 'evidence' that the rocks from Mt. St. Helens are 2 million years old? Someone on another forum brought this up and someone replied that the test doesn't work for young dates (something similar to this anyway). If the test is useless for yound dates, what grounds can we have any certainty that it works for longer periods of time? It seems like the younger the rock, the more accurate, not the other way around.How about the fradulent data Ernst Haeckel decided to make up (with 'proof') about how fetal organisms all go through prior stages in evolution before being born? What he thought was the human fetal gill turned out to be our ear. Do you think this is ever mentioned in a Biology class talking about how we evolved from some other organism? Trust me, it is not. How about another one.Another example is the peppered moth experiments in England. People try to say that this proves evolution. All it does is show that the moths have alleles for a light body and a dark body. Both alleles were present before the pollution. Both alleles were present after the pollution. Evolutionists start out by describing evolution in this experiment as a change in what alleles are expressed, and then mid-argument switch the meaning of evolution to speciation. The two moths were still one species. Neither moth became a dragonfly. Seems to me changing the definition of a word in the middle of a discussion is the same thing as throwing evidence away.

Here is another one. How about Pasteur's experiment in which he demonstrated that life does not arise from non-life? He took a couple of different swan neck test tubes, boiled them to sterilize them, broke the top off of one of them and then let them sit. Both test tubes still had an oxygen atmosphere because the gas could freely circulate, but the un-broken test tube would not permit bacteria to enter the medium. In the broken test tube, bacteria began to grow. In the un-broken test tube, nothing happened. His conclusion was that life only arises from life. What do evolutionists say about this? That in today's environment it doesn't happen but it did way back then. Seems like a large assumption. This does fit creationism however because we never claim life must arise from non-life. God is the source of all life. Seems like both of us believe in a miracle happening in the past. The difference is creationist have a miracle worker.

Yes I do know this in the wrong forum, but someone wanted evidence. You can't compare a yardstick measuring piston clearance because we can prove other tools work better. We know for a fact how old the rocks from Mt. St. Helens are. It is not possible to prove rocks are millions of years old because none of us were around then to winess it, and all of the systems used for dating are based on assumptions. The dates are assumed to be old, so the fossils are assumed to be old, so the dating methods are assumed to be inaccurate for short dates. Why is it just assumed that this method works for long dates when it is incredibly obvious it doesn't work for short dates?