First off, some people here seem to have a problem with me deciding evolution is garbage... well, I'm sorry, but for me it is, you can make up your own minds.
Now quark, no those aren't the only place I'm getting information, however having consumed a lot of stuff I tend to go to creationsafaris... what is it you have a problem with? Their direct quotes? Their links to articles by all the favorite evolutionists in all of their favorite articles, in Science, Nature, etc. etc. etc. etc......
So the "it ain't true just because it's on the internet", would you be referring to all those articles? Whether you agree with the detailed scientific analysis the guy does or not, you can't accuse him of hiding anything from people. Unlike the evolutionsist who think they are "above" seeing another side. This guy links you directly to the articles and breaks them down, and then after each usually gives his analysis. Now I know you guys dismiss everything right away, but don't assume anything out of context. Just because you read one or two posts that don't ammount to much, other times there are extremely detailed analysis...
Anyway, if it's all so non-scientific and so stupid people will go to http://creationsafaris.com/crevnews.htm and decide for themselves? Let people way the evidence and common sense of things and make up their own minds, instead of pushing this as "facts" that constantly get changed... how many ideas about the solar system have been completely changed this year?
Anyway, like I said in my original post.. I didn't come to get in to the old debate of the "facts", that I've done to death before elsewhere... it really doesn't seem worth the time. I just came with a couple of links... people can make what they will of them, or ignore them, or whatever... but don't misrepresent them.
You can decide whatever you want, that's your 1st Amendment right. And the people at creationsafaris, etc. have the right to post anything they want. I don't dipute that. As someone who does have a reasonable science education, I (and others) also have the right to point out where they are mistaken.
Now quark, no those aren't the only place I'm getting information, however having consumed a lot of stuff I tend to go to creationsafaris... what is it you have a problem with?
The blatant distortion of the truth targeted at people with a lack of scientific understanding is what I have a problem with. Quoting technical articles to laypersons is useless unless it is done in the context that was intended.
Now I know you guys dismiss everything right away, but don't assume anything out of context.
I don't dismiss anything right away, but there has to be some scientific validity to an idea for it gain acceptance in the scientific community. The science on these sites is just plain terrible. Repeatedly, over and over again, you see arguments on these sites like "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible" or "mutations cannot add genetic information" or "evidence exists that humans and dinosaurs coexisted", things which are blatantly untrue.
So the "it ain't true just because it's on the internet", would you be referring to all those articles?
No I'm referring to articles that distort or ignore the findings of mainstream science. This is not limited to evolution - there are cranks in almost every field of science. If someone is pitching against the scientific "establishment" or that their claims are being "suppressed", chances are better than not that there's no real substance to them.
Let people way the evidence and common sense of things and make up their own minds, instead of pushing this as "facts" that constantly get changed... how many ideas about the solar system have been completely changed this year?
I do encourage people to weigh evidence and use common sense, but you also have to make sure you're getting accurate information. Creationist websites are notorious for misquoting the conclusions of scientists. As far as facts changing, well, theories do have to refine themselves as information changes, but this usually is a modification, not an overhaul of a whole theory. In the example you gave, yes, many new bodies have been found in the outer solar system; this doesn't change the basic understanding of how it works, it only improves it.
As for what biologists and geologists (and other scientists) really think, who are almost 100% unified in their acknowledgement of evolution , just about any creationist objection to evolution is answered here:
This link actually quotes cited science articles in their intended context, that's the crucial difference.