Originally Posted by Russ
Actually, it's more akin to a dentist saying that amalgam fillings don't have any health effects, or doctors claiming that mercury in vaccines has nothing to do with autism.

You see Linear, it's actually a matter of understanding how the world really works, and having the courage to recognize the corruption that abounds in all fields.

People pay large amounts of money to go to school to be a doctor, dentist, geologist, etc., and they expect that they are being taught correctly.

Unfortunately, just as corporations have gained control of the world media (See http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html ), they have also gained control of the educational system. It's well known that pharmaceutical companies control medical education; And so it is with other fields.

So, sometimes (more often than you'd like to believe), people in those fields lie or even more often, ignore the corruption going on around. Why? Because they want to keep their jobs.

NutraSweet is on the market today because of a series of orchestrated lies. One scientist was paid $30,000 to lie on reports made during a phenylalanine study.

In other cases, people don't really know what they are doing. In the case of dentists and amalgam, they were taught that amalgam was safe in school, so they believe it. Unfortunately, there was corruption at a higher level that fabricated the lie (ADA holds amalgam patents).

So, you see, in some cases, it is corruption. In other cases, it is incompetence. In many cases, it's some combination of both that cause corruption in scientific fields.

Remember, evolution is one of the most profitable religions in the history of the world.
Probably the most useful tool in their kit is the tendency to follow established procedures.

Fans of the TV show House must recognize that no real-world doctor would proceed as Dr. House does. Even if they encountered the incredible variety of cases the fictional hero does, they wouldn't depart readily and consistently from established procedure.

This is the case with nearly all professions. The simplest way to avoid criticism, conflict, lawsuits, prosecution, and persecution is to follow established procedures. All that one need do to become a puppet master is establish a few procedures.

So in practical terms of researching any field corrupted by evolutionism, one needs to follow established procedures and submit samples to labs like everyone else, and include the results in their reports. What else do you suggest they do?

Linear, if you want to play the numbers game, the only way to even begin to make it convincing is to survey the retired community. Ask them if they believed the results, and just as importantly, ask them if they base their confidence in the dating methods upon having evaluated the methods themselves, or merely accepted what they were taught. No matter how brilliant the individual, it doesn't mean much if this brilliance was never brought to bear on the question.

Now if you could produce some impressive number of retired scientists who had independently verified that the dating methods are sound, you'd have a start. But you'd still have to concede that a geologist isn't a chemist or a physicist or a philosopher. In order to argue from authority, one would need to be an expert in all the relevant fields, wouldn't one?

We do know that there exists a large amount of dissenting expert opinion on every aspect of evolutionism, even within the evolutionist community. We don't see this in too many areas of legitimate science. We don't see engineers doubting the effectiveness of trusswork, do we? We don't see too much dissent on Ohm's Law, do we?

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson