.....or "creationism" , bill!/?. but as you know bill, I think it [evolutionism] is a set in stone doctrine. it is true that it is a process of sorts , but necessitated by its story having to change when awkward discoveries invalidate the details of the story at some point. that "tricky dino DNA" is a case in point. correct me if I am mistaken but I understood that DNA has a set shelf life a long ways short of 65 plus myo. same with the various soft tissues.
but because evolutionists "know" dinos are that old, they now know that these perishable elements can last that long. the deep time and other Darwinist basics are set in stone, imo.
excuse me, but I find that hard to accept as science....more like fundamentalism.
and if your description of what evolutionism is, is all there is to it, it would make creation scientists evolutionists. all scientists measure data...it is the interpretation of the data that differentiates. do you have an argument with kerkuts definitions that traces the theory back to nothing?

hi mthemg,- how can you be "pretty sure" that there is not a creator " omnipotent, supernatural being " . the problem with the turtle on a turtle ad nausium scenario is that those turtles are material , and the regression must stop somewhere. the bible describes a God who is spirit and eternally existing, and so the old "who made God" challenge is redundant.
the new atheist challenges now seem to be more on the lines of " if God is good and powerful why.......you name the evil or suffering allowed..."
the biblical creationist can go so far in answering these challenges, but of course it will be nothing such atheists will consider, since their preconception is that the bible is a fairy story.