Well thank you , the more moderate opponents !   Never the less , bill, thinks he might not "play anymore " if I persist in referring to evolutionism as a religion. I will risk that as , 1, that would be allowing you to set the rules of the game, bill. 2, evolutionists believe a lot of stuff that they are not able to substantiate by observable, testable ,repeatable science , and most of what they do offer has been countered by creationists. 3, since there are things they believe only on faith , calling it religion is not unreasonable( there are other parallels also ) . 4, your equating evolutionism with science , is misleading as there is a difference in what is scientifically testable and more or less beyond dispute, than origins research. I reject the notion that being a creationist is equivalent to rejecting science. In fact I could do the reverse and have , indeed , Cited when it does reject known decay rates because they threaten the paradigm.       Joe sez, " there is too much evidence that refutes creationism". Really....shall we have some then      If you cannot demonstrate that alleged evidence, you are just making an unsupported assertion, and you are accepting evolutionism (albeit theistic ) on faith.