[quote]I would accept an alternative, that's what science is about. Like I said I only care about truth. But seeing as what I currently believe is backed up and is the basic foundation of almost all of science, I'm sticking with it until someone brings something forward that debunks the scientific community.[/quote] Here is my problem. I'm going to ignore the fact that publications in the science community have come forth stating that the way we date things is unreliable for a moment and talk to you about the above quoted text. Firstly, it sounds like you are using science as a scape goat by claiming its the alternative. As if Darwinism is evolution and the only other theory is that of religion. Darwinism as I've said time and time again is a theory that states over a large amount of time a species can in fact evolve into another species. It is unproven and more over it seems to be debunked quite easily and often. Just Google search Darwinism debunked by science. You'll acquire thousands of results by the science community. There is no observable case of Darwinism actually being a fact. Birds beaks change you say? That is called an adaptation. They never change into another species. I could go on but that requires a lot of back tracking and research for me. Im on a tablet so its not so easy to list everything with an answer to it. Every instance where they could prove Darwinism as the explanation for where humans came from has failed miserably. The problem with this theory is that Darwinism is backed up much in the way Christian scholars back up their ideals as truth. With no observable evidence. They believe they are right because they would hate to be wrong. The fundamentals of science are not at all relatable to Darwinism. I do hate to tickle your testies but that is just plain ignorant to say. Science has been available and used way before Mr. Darwin was even born so to say its the basic foundation of science as we know it is false in every way you could spin that statement.