Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Hey, don't drink your contact lens solution if you are worried!

In any case, ALL preservatives are toxic to something or other in some dose, as that is what a preservative is for — to kill bacteria. The alternative is to use hydrogen peroxide as a steriliser.

Dear gcthomas,

I don't wear contacts anymore. I had a cataract operation and I see 20/20 now. I don't know what hydrogen peroxide would feel like in my eyes. Sounds bubbly!!

Warm Regards,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Can't way whether that was true or not, but if it was you should not be so hasty to use mercury in your eyes. Dry eyes would be preferable.

Dear Ross,

It's true, but yes, it is not very pleasant in the eyes of someone who is allergic to it. I quit using it once I found out about it. My sister pointed it out.

God Be With You!!

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

I have observed otherwise intelligent people abuse or neglect their abilities because of other objectives or priorities. It should be fairly obvious that if you make an assumption and the assumption is untrue then you will get skewed results. The evolutionist that claims Carbon Dating establishes an old earth isn't even being honest with their assumptions to begin with. Or in most cases never even notices that they were making assumptions.

I'm going to file this under "no I haven't considered that I may have missed something and read up more on the topic first". I guess you really do think you are THAT smart.... Which begs the question, why are you wasting your time here?

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

You know, if you're going to ask people to go along with your "just assume my story is true and go from there" approach, it would help if you could keep that story straight.

This is what you said:

The lab would say "you can't expect carbon dating to work in samples this old. But how did you keep soft tissue intact for such a long time?" In absence of any significant trace of C14 they judge the sample to be OLD not YOUNG.​

You directly said Adam's rib would have no "significant trace of C14". As I showed that wouldn't be the case as the formation and distribution of C14 in the carbon cycle is fairly quick. Whether it was in equilibrium is irrelevant to that point.

So I'm starting to wonder just what your point is with all this. You seem to be going through a lot of effort to try and say that if we took remains from the creation week (Adam's rib or a mouse that lived with Adam) and subjected them to C14 testing the results would come back as older than they really are due to a lack of C14.

If that's your point.....um....so what? Do you have any actual specimens you believe to be from the creation week?

First, common sense should tell you that with a half life of carbon 14 there's no conceivable way that the atmosphere would be saturated with c14 at equilibrium in one year.

Besides this, you would require 1) a brand new planet with a brand new earth to reach equilibrium C14 levels, 2) matching today's levels, and 3) for Adam's rib which was originally created from dust containing only a few days C14 input to incorporate that into its tissue, 4) all in a single year.

Second, even if we accepted your fantasy assumption for the world today, the conditions of radiation reaching the planet were obviously different then. You dislike applying your IQ against your religious beliefs, but doesn't solar radiation cause aging? How long did Adam live? Even if we were to accept your absurdly false proposal, you haven't even attempted to account for the factors given to you in the problem.

There's an issue of honesty here. When I accept your proposals on which you claim to base your conclusions and follow them, I am pointing out contradiction based on what you proposed already. For example, when the dating of soft tissue (and coal deposits) return ages younger than 50,000 years that shows there's something wrong in your base assumptions. You've assumed Old Earth and relatively constant C14 levels for 50,000 years and dinosaurs and coal deposits older than that and you've obviously wrong somewhere.

You seem to have trouble applying the same courtesy (intellectual integrity) back the other way. I was asked that if I consider the earth young, how that would account for Carbon-14 dating results in the 10000-40000 year category. I've showed something clearly written in five chapters of Genesis. There are certain observations that can be made, including 1) the earth and sun is new 2) the atmosphere is different than we observe today and 3) normal people live about 12 times longer than now. The atmosphere changes about 4400 years ago and the life span of humans starts to drop along a nice mathematically-compliant curve until they reach present day expectations. All of these factors point towards a decreased level of radiation affecting our earth system, of which does answer how "atheist years" would not relate to "real years" when attempting to apply standard carbon dating assumptions to dates past several millennia ago.

If you wish to disagree with the validity of my stated assumptions, feel free to do so on their merits. But when considering a theory or proposal, you should be willing to accept those assumptions for reasons of analysis. Just like what was done for you (even though your theory failed.)

 

[Rosenritter]

I'm going to file this under "no I haven't considered that I may have missed something and read up more on the topic first". I guess you really do think you are THAT smart.... Which begs the question, why are you wasting your time here?

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

I would ask the courtesy that you not put words into my mouth for me. And if you wish to be considered fair and intelligent then you may wish to apply your own advice to yourself first, otherwise it is a case of the pot calling kettles black.

 

[Tyrathca]

I would ask the courtesy that you not put words into my mouth for me. And if you wish to be considered fair and intelligent then you may wish to apply your own advice to yourself first, otherwise it is a case of the pot calling kettles black.

You know what is a good way for words not to be put in your mouth? Actually clearly saying what you think rather than beating around the bush. Getting an answer out of you is like pulling teeth, you'll redirect it anywhere else you can. After a while I have to start interpreting what you are/aren't saying or else talking with you is pointless.

So I will ask for the nth time - "You seem to think the problems with dating methods (and basically anything suggesting an old earth) are very obvious to you yet apparently not the experts. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the reason for this isn't that you're smart and the experts dumb/blind/corrupt/etc? That perhaps instead you may have missed something they didn't, hopefully leading you to read up a little more on the subject first?" - If you don't want to answer the question just say so and I'll stop wasting both of our time.

As for myself I regularly do exactly as I have asked of you, be it in my area of speciality in real life or science in general. When I think that something is obviously wrong with what experts are saying I routinely get concerned I've missed something and do further reading. The vast majority of the time with more research and thinking realise what I missed but occasionally I find that the status quo is actually based on fairly limited evidence after a LOT of digging through original research (but in those cases I often find that the status quo is being supported not by those doing the research and most up to date but instead others with loud voices, like those who write textbooks, journalists or those who pump out knee jerk guidelines, people of the "this is how it's always been done" mentality etc). I know enough to know how little I actually know about most things (even the stuff I know the most about!) and I have learned that the "obvious" is often wrong (since the obviousness often comes from cognitive shortcuts not good logic and evidence) or if not has often thought of it before me anyway.

 

[Jose Fly]

??? Nope!

Not all people are evolutionists.

Not all people are scientists.

Not all scientists are evolutionists.

However... all scientists are people.

Comparative genomics has always been an evidence of our Creator... unlike the ever changing, flip flopping evolutionist 'tree' assertions. What is your flavor today... you will have a new fave tomorrow.

Unlike evolutionists, we don't need to invent new trees. The evidence from comparative genomics always has and always will support the Biblical account.

Sorry but I've lost all interest in continuing to attempt debates with a human parrot/broken record.

Let me know when you have something new.

 

[Jose Fly]

First, common sense should tell you that with a half life of carbon 14 there's no conceivable way that the atmosphere would be saturated with c14 at equilibrium in one year.

As I showed, the data indicates that C14 production is fairly quick and the distribution of C14 through the carbon cycle takes about 15 years. If you have better data, then present it.

Besides this, you would require 1) a brand new planet with a brand new earth to reach equilibrium C14 levels, 2) matching today's levels, and 3) for Adam's rib which was originally created from dust containing only a few days C14 input to incorporate that into its tissue, 4) all in a single year.

Like I said, if your point here is that a rib taken from Adam after he'd been alive for one year would have little to no C14 in it, I'm good with that. But I fail to see what your point is, unless you actually have a piece of Adam's rib.

Second, even if we accepted your fantasy assumption for the world today, the conditions of radiation reaching the planet were obviously different then. You dislike applying your IQ against your religious beliefs, but doesn't solar radiation cause aging? How long did Adam live? Even if we were to accept your absurdly false proposal, you haven't even attempted to account for the factors given to you in the problem.

The above makes no sense.

There's an issue of honesty here. When I accept your proposals on which you claim to base your conclusions and follow them, I am pointing out contradiction based on what you proposed already. For example, when the dating of soft tissue (and coal deposits) return ages younger than 50,000 years that shows there's something wrong in your base assumptions. You've assumed Old Earth and relatively constant C14 levels for 50,000 years and dinosaurs and coal deposits older than that and you've obviously wrong somewhere.

Again, the fact that you think an old earth is merely an "assumption" shows that you either don't know all that much about the subject, or are dishonestly misrepresenting the state of the science over the last couple of centuries.

And also again and as I pointed out, the creationist argument that radiometric dating "involves assumptions" is at least half a century old, and likely 75 years old, yet over that time it's had zero impact on science. So why you think restating it here anonymously is going to change that is a mystery.

I was asked that if I consider the earth young, how that would account for Carbon-14 dating results in the 10000-40000 year category.

Not by me. I already know how creationists deal with science that contradicts their beliefs....they deny it.

I've showed something clearly written in five chapters of Genesis. There are certain observations that can be made, including 1) the earth and sun is new 2) the atmosphere is different than we observe today and 3) normal people live about 12 times longer than now. The atmosphere changes about 4400 years ago and the life span of humans starts to drop along a nice mathematically-compliant curve until they reach present day expectations.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall you posting any actual data, let alone any curves derived from it. All I've seen you do is point out that Genesis says Adam lived a long time, and use that to add all sorts of assumed details to the story (e.g., atmospheric conditions).

All of these factors point towards a decreased level of radiation affecting our earth system, of which does answer how "atheist years" would not relate to "real years" when attempting to apply standard carbon dating assumptions to dates past several millennia ago.

Ok, I'll tell you what....I'll grant that if we assume your version of Genesis is true, and grant whatever assumptions and additions to the story you can imagine as also true, and just accept all your unsupported assertions as true, then yes....it all explains the discrepancies between your version of the story and the scientific data.

If you wish to disagree with the validity of my stated assumptions, feel free to do so on their merits. But when considering a theory or proposal, you should be willing to accept those assumptions for reasons of analysis. Just like what was done for you (even though your theory failed.)

Thanks for your time.

I've grown rather bored with all this, so unless any of you have anything new, I'll think I'll just step away for a few days or so.

 

[Rosenritter]

Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall you posting any actual data, let alone any curves derived from it. All I've seen you do is point out that Genesis says Adam lived a long time, and use that to add all sorts of assumed details to the story (e.g., atmospheric conditions).

1. Thought you said you had read Genesis. At least the first few chapters. Are you unable to read a few numbers and perceive a pattern or progression?

2. Genesis flat out says the atmospheric conditions were different. And when you claimed that I'd never posted it, I posted it again. And another time. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Or a memory problem. Perhaps a self-inflicted stupidity problem.

 

[6days]

Again, the fact that you think an old earth is merely an "assumption" shows that you either don't know all that much about the subject, or are dishonestly misrepresenting the state of the science over the last couple of centuries.

Your statement reveals you either don't know all that much about the subject, or are dishonestly misrepresenting the state of the science over the last couple of centuries. Knowleagble and honest evolutionists admit to the assumptions

And also again and as I pointed out, the creationist argument that radiometric dating "involves assumptions" is at least half a century old, and likely 75 years old, yet over that time it's had zero impact on science. So why you think restating it here anonymously is going to change that is a mystery.

Repeating your arguments that have been proven wrong reveals you either don't know all that much about the subject, or are dishonestly misrepresenting the state of the science over the last couple of centuries. Knowleagble and honest evolutionists admit to the assumptions.

I already know how creationists deal with science that contradicts their beliefs....they deny it

Jose... in order for you to understand how others deal with science... you first need to understand science - you don't.

I've grown rather bored with all this, so unless any of you have anything new, I'll think I'll just step away for a few days or so

Come back soon... hopefully with something new.

 

[Rosenritter]

1. Thought you said you had read Genesis. At least the first few chapters. Are you unable to read a few numbers and perceive a pattern or progression?

2. Genesis flat out says the atmospheric conditions were different. And when you claimed that I'd never posted it, I posted it again. And another time. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Or a memory problem. Perhaps a self-inflicted stupidity problem.

 

[Rosenritter]

You know what is a good way for words not to be put in your mouth? Actually clearly saying what you think rather than beating around the bush. Getting an answer out of you is like pulling teeth, you'll redirect it anywhere else you can. After a while I have to start interpreting what you are/aren't saying or else talking with you is pointless.

So I will ask for the nth time - "You seem to think the problems with dating methods (and basically anything suggesting an old earth) are very obvious to you yet apparently not the experts. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the reason for this isn't that you're smart and the experts dumb/blind/corrupt/etc? That perhaps instead you may have missed something they didn't, hopefully leading you to read up a little more on the subject first?" - If you don't want to answer the question just say so and I'll stop wasting both of our time.

As for myself I regularly do exactly as I have asked of you, be it in my area of speciality in real life or science in general. When I think that something is obviously wrong with what experts are saying I routinely get concerned I've missed something and do further reading. The vast majority of the time with more research and thinking realise what I missed but occasionally I find that the status quo is actually based on fairly limited evidence after a LOT of digging through original research (but in those cases I often find that the status quo is being supported not by those doing the research and most up to date but instead others with loud voices, like those who write textbooks, journalists or those who pump out knee jerk guidelines, people of the "this is how it's always been done" mentality etc). I know enough to know how little I actually know about most things (even the stuff I know the most about!) and I have learned that the "obvious" is often wrong (since the obviousness often comes from cognitive shortcuts not good logic and evidence) or if not has often thought of it before me anyway.

Well spoken. I will now share something. I am in-between moves from one house to another and the computer stations were not first on the list for assembly. Finishing the move before the end of the month is, so as much as I might like to type elegantly with one thumb on a cell phone the response is limited. It is not "beating around the bush" but rather sparse time and an exhausted thumb.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Check This Out:

• Evolution is contrary to natural laws (without exception) whereas creation is consistent with natural laws—for example, creation is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and law of biogenesis.

• There are no known biological processes for evolution to higher levels of organization and complexity—mutations are overwhelmingly degenerative and none are “uphill” (that is, unequivocally beneficial) in the sense of adding new genetic information to the gene pool.

• Geologic landforms and sedimentary features are completely consistent with a worldwide flood as described in the Book of Genesis.

• Enormous limestone formations, huge coal and oil formations, and immense underground salt layers are indicative of a worldwide flood—not slow and gradual processes over billions of years. Such features are satisfactorily explained by a worldwide flood and known geophysical and geochemical processes.

• There is no credible technique for establishing the age of sedimentary rock—fossil dating used to establish the age of sedimentary rock suffers from circular reasoning and guesswork, all based on the assumption of evolution.

• The standard geologic column with transitional creatures evolving toward more complex forms, as depicted in most science textbooks, is utterly fictitious and misleading, and does not represent the real world. In reality, it perfectly represents the aftermath of a worldwide flood.

• There are no transitional fossils or living forms—there is not one single example of evolution! Evolutionists look for “the” missing link—ironically, they are in desperate search for just one! But there should be billions of examples of transitional forms with transitional structures if evolution were true, but there are none. The bottom line, evolution has never been observed within fossils or living populations.

• Contrary to popular belief, evidence indicates that early man was intelligent and highly skilled with an advanced social structure. There is also evidence suggesting their belief in the existence of an afterlife.

• Soft tissues and traces of blood cells have been found in dinosaur fossils supposedly 70 to 250 million years old. (Soft tissues and red blood cells have relatively short life spans.)

• Carbon-14 has been found in coal and diamonds supposedly hundreds of millions of years old. (C-14 has a relatively short life-span.)

• Radioisotope dating suffers from multiple unprovable assumptions—the technique is “fatally flawed”—yet scientists contend as fact what they cannot prove.

• Abundant daughter isotopes are indicative of accelerated nuclear decay associated with creation (expansion, stretching out, or acceleration of the universe from an extremely hot, dense phase when matter and energy were concentrated) and a worldwide flood with massive restructuring of the earth’s lithosphere, not slow and gradual processes over billions of years.

• Evidences of accelerated nuclear decay in igneous rocks found worldwide are helium in zircon crystals, radiohalos and fission tracks, and rapid magnetic field reversals and decay.

• Over a hundred geochronometers indicate a young earth and universe.

Each of these evidences, examined individually, is enough to convince most rational people that evolution is a false doctrine and the earth is, in fact, young!


About the Author

Dr. Roger Gallop has spent over 30 years as a professional geologist and marine scientist. He has a bachelors in geology, a masters in oceanography, and a Ph.D. in science education (emphasis: research design using multivariate statistics). In addition to his science background, he was an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps and is a decorated Vietnam veteran. He has been happily married for over 40 years with one son and grandson.


Copyright © 2011-2016, Red Butte Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Use Policy and Privacy Policy

 

[iouae]

Noah lived 350 years after the flood, Noah's son Shem, over 500 years. Thus I speculate that it was inbreeding from the one family of 6 individuals (Shem, Ham, Japheth) rather than environmental factors which reduced lifespans after the flood. I cannot think of any environmental factor today (apart from poisons) which can reduce lifespans as dramatically as happened after the flood.

 

[Rosenritter]

Noah lived 350 years after the flood, Noah's son Shem, over 500 years. Thus I speculate that it was inbreeding from the one family of 6 individuals (Shem, Ham, Japheth) rather than environmental factors which reduced lifespans after the flood. I cannot think of any environmental factor today (apart from poisons) which can reduce lifespans as dramatically as happened after the flood.

Come again? Think that through for a moment. Cain and Seth married daughters of Adam and Eve, and Adam married his own rib. No short lifespans from their children, and everyone traced back to the same two parents. You are in the right track on environmental factors. Radiation decreases life span. No more mist covering the earth, now you have rain instead.

 

[Rosenritter]

You know what is a good way for words not to be put in your mouth? Actually clearly saying what you think rather than beating around the bush. Getting an answer out of you is like pulling teeth, you'll redirect it anywhere else you can. After a while I have to start interpreting what you are/aren't saying or else talking with you is pointless.

So I will ask for the nth time - "You seem to think the problems with dating methods (and basically anything suggesting an old earth) are very obvious to you yet apparently not the experts. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the reason for this isn't that you're smart and the experts dumb/blind/corrupt/etc? That perhaps instead you may have missed something they didn't, hopefully leading you to read up a little more on the subject first?" - If you don't want to answer the question just say so and I'll stop wasting both of our time.

As for myself I regularly do exactly as I have asked of you, be it in my area of speciality in real life or science in general. When I think that something is obviously wrong with what experts are saying I routinely get concerned I've missed something and do further reading. The vast majority of the time with more research and thinking realise what I missed but occasionally I find that the status quo is actually based on fairly limited evidence after a LOT of digging through original research (but in those cases I often find that the status quo is being supported not by those doing the research and most up to date but instead others with loud voices, like those who write textbooks, journalists or those who pump out knee jerk guidelines, people of the "this is how it's always been done" mentality etc). I know enough to know how little I actually know about most things (even the stuff I know the most about!) and I have learned that the "obvious" is often wrong (since the obviousness often comes from cognitive shortcuts not good logic and evidence) or if not has often thought of it before me anyway.

Ty, the issue is not an alleged doctrine of the infallibility of Rosenritter. The issue is with whom you choose to define as Experts. Corruption exists at many levels in our world. When a so called or proclaimed Expert abuses that status and ignores or contradicts known fact or evidence they no longer deserve trust.

Do you think that you are being told truth in areas of law and politics and religion? Rhetorical. If you say yes I say you are naive.

This forum seems to have mistaken a politically fueled religious belief called "evolution" with science. Evidence contradicting said belief is squelched or quashed by the adherents of this religion, because the alternative is "unthinkable."

You might also want to be more careful before accusing your opponent of ignorance, of not having exercised rational thought or reading.

 

[Tyrathca]

Ty, the issue is not an alleged doctrine of the infallibility of Rosenritter. The issue is with whom you choose to define as Experts.

Ummmm.... I define experts fairly consistently as those who do the research or those who review and apply the research regularly in a structured manner.

Corruption exists at many levels in our world. When a so called or proclaimed Expert abuses that status and ignores or contradicts known fact or evidence they no longer deserve trust.

And there's the rub. Are you really so confident that the problem is experts corruption and ignoring the known evidence and not your misunderstanding of said research and evidence? My experience of researchers (albeit not in geology or physics) is that they are in general very open to knew data and unlikely to be swayed by corruption except where there is a clear monetary incentive (i.e. company sponsorship) and even then that is only a minority of them which will succumb to that.

You have been given detailed explanations for why you are mistaken and you clearly do not have a deep understanding of the topic given your lack of discussion about the technical aspects beyond what you consider "obvious" so your confidence in corruption over your own fallibility is curious. Especially when the corruption would require a conspiracy's of such immense proportions that it would inevitably collapse in on itself within years (let alone the centuries thus far).

Do you think that you are being told truth in areas of law and politics and religion? Rhetorical. If you say yes I say you are naive.

No, but we are not talking about law, politics or religion. We are talking about science which has a structured approach to trying to elicit the truth, and if lies are given it has a good track record of this process uncovering it. I can only wish that one day we apply the same rigour to politics, law and religion as we do to science. "Evidence-based government" would be wonderous I suspect, it's certainly made a big impact in other areas.

This forum seems to have mistaken a politically fueled religious belief called "evolution" with science.

You calling it a religion does not make it so and doesn't even make sense. It has none of the attributes of religion (unless you completely bastardise the word beyond recognition) and is even believed by people of many very different religions. It is very clearly an accepted part of the scientific literature with a broad and deep body of evidence describing it in extreme detail. New research in it is being published daily and this research has the same standards applied to it as any other science.

That YOU don't consider it science is a moot point since you are clearly not very well versed in what should be considered science int he first place. Or if you are you've done a very good job of hiding it.

Evidence contradicting said belief is squelched or quashed by the adherents of this religion, because the alternative is "unthinkable."

Are you sure that it is "squelched" and not just refuted? Your disagreement with the refutations is not relevant to this. By the same token psychiatrists keep "squelching" any evidence suggesting star signs have a major role in personality because the concept is "unthinkable" (this is literally what creationism looks like to researchers - endlessly refuted but someone still seems to feel really really strongly that there is truth in those old myths based on extremely shallow evidence with little detail or rigor)

You might also want to be more careful before accusing your opponent of ignorance, of not having exercised rational thought or reading.

I can only judge you by what I see. That is what I see.

If you are not ignorant or have done reading it has not seemed to show given much of what you have complained about is already well detailed for in the existing research and you just keep asking people here to rehash it. You're like a physics student asking really basic questions of Relativity trying to show it "obviously" doesn't make sense before looking into whether people have already asked those questions before. You don't present any new research, no new data, and seem wholly ignorant of all the steps scientists have already taken to correlate their data.

 

[6days]

Like GC said... You can't take modern rates and extrapolate that into the unknown past.

What I have also said several times, is that the amount of C14 through pre-history has been measured

Cool... next time you get in your time machine and visit pre-history, take your camera! IOW, your claim is silly. We measure C14 in the present then make conclusions about the past.

 

[6days]

You seem to think the problems with dating methods (and basically anything suggesting an old earth) are very obvious to you yet apparently not the experts.

Logical fallacy arguments are tricks or illusions of thought, and they sneakily used by evolutionists to fool people.

Ty.... your 'argument' is an appeal to the majority. Fortunately science and truth have nothing to do with popular opinion. Your argument also is dishonest, but would be honest if you had said something like 'most experts'. Amazingly, there are also thousands of experts who get their degrees from universities which teach old earth beliefs, yet they insist the evidence does not support that belief. IOW...They get there PhD's understanding what is being taught, but don't agree with it.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the reason for this isn't that you're smart and the experts dumb/blind/corrupt/etc?!

A few experts are corrupt perhaps. I don't think any are dumb. But the experts certainly have different interpretations of the evidence based upon which history they believe in. Are you suggesting experts are corrupt or dumb when they disagree with you?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Ummmm.... I define experts fairly consistently as those who do the research or those who review and apply the research regularly in a structured manner. And there's the rub. Are you really so confident that the problem is experts corruption and ignoring the known evidence and not your misunderstanding of said research and evidence? My experience of researchers (albeit not in geology or physics) is that they are in general very open to knew data and unlikely to be swayed by corruption except where there is a clear monetary incentive (i.e. company sponsorship) and even then that is only a minority of them which will succumb to that.

You have been given detailed explanations for why you are mistaken and you clearly do not have a deep understanding of the topic given your lack of discussion about the technical aspects beyond what you consider "obvious" so your confidence in corruption over your own fallibility is curious. Especially when the corruption would require a conspiracy's of such immense proportions that it would inevitably collapse in on itself within years (let alone the centuries thus far).

No, but we are not talking about law, politics or religion. We are talking about science which has a structured approach to trying to elicit the truth, and if lies are given it has a good track record of this process uncovering it. I can only wish that one day we apply the same rigour to politics, law and religion as we do to science. "Evidence-based government" would be wonderous I suspect, it's certainly made a big impact in other areas.
You calling it a religion does not make it so and doesn't even make sense. It has none of the attributes of religion (unless you completely bastardise the word beyond recognition) and is even believed by people of many very different religions. It is very clearly an accepted part of the scientific literature with a broad and deep body of evidence describing it in extreme detail. New research in it is being published daily and this research has the same standards applied to it as any other science.

That YOU don't consider it science is a moot point since you are clearly not very well versed in what should be considered science int he first place. Or if you are you've done a very good job of hiding it.
Are you sure that it is "squelched" and not just refuted? Your disagreement with the refutations is not relevant to this. By the same token psychiatrists keep "squelching" any evidence suggesting star signs have a major role in personality because the concept is "unthinkable" (this is literally what creationism looks like to researchers - endlessly refuted but someone still seems to feel really really strongly that there is truth in those old myths based on extremely shallow evidence with little detail or rigor)
I can only judge you by what I see. That is what I see.

If you are not ignorant or have done reading it has not seemed to show given much of what you have complained about is already well detailed for in the existing research and you just keep asking people here to rehash it. You're like a physics student asking really basic questions of Relativity trying to show it "obviously" doesn't make sense before looking into whether people have already asked those questions before. You don't present any new research, no new data, and seem wholly ignorant of all the steps scientists have already taken to correlate their data.

Dear Tyrathca,

I believe in some science. What I don't believe is that evolution is true. It is a bunch of nonsense. I put it that way to be kind. Science takes evolution under it's wing, right? Not in a thousand years is Darwin correct! Darwin's assessment of the situation is so blatantly false, it is a wonder that science agrees with it. I think it's hilarious. And their dating methods leave much to be desired! It would be different if they said maybe to their deductions, but no. They say it all as if it's a matter of fact. What it is is a matter of 'perhaps.' So chalk me up as a nonbeliever.

Not Just My Opinion, Ty,

Michael