Pete.. we have a basic disconnect.

"bill, can I ask that you frame your own arguments"

It seems that because I trust science and logic, you expect that I should type, at great length, a defense of all the points and experiments and discoveries that might bear on my position. And to each of them you merely need to reply that ...'those don't really **prove** your claims, because there are too many missing links or some scientists who don't agree'...
On the other hand, your ultimate fall back position is 'faith', and one doesn't need to prove faith positions. Then you use for support a few creationist scientists who use their versions of MY science & logic to cast doubt on the majority of their disciplines.
Doesn't seem fair to me.

Now, a few people have made remarks about your education. Do remember, you occasionally mention that in your explanations about not delving into technical web sites or following detailed arguments about physics or chemistry.
   I do not make fun of anyone's education. It is not necessary to go to college to follow the basic ideas about most issues, (and yes..*I* see your posts becoming clearer, even when I disagree)..... but suppose you had followed a different course and found yourself in school, taking courses in biology, geology, logic, etc. There you are, face to face with supposed experts in the very topics we are now discussing, trying to follow the same data you ask ME to explain simply in my own words for you.
Assuming you still follow the same religious beliefs you now have, do you raise your hand in class and dispute what these experts tell you? These guys who can answer the question and explain the theories in detail? Would you tell a logic teacher that his concept of circular reasoning and "appeal to authority" and "straw man" are just a matter of opinion and that yours are just as valid? That is what you have done with mine on several occasions.
   Some definitions and rules of proof...etc... are just not arbitrary, and I HAVE studied them and learned whether & how they conform to standard rules. But you find that 'inconvenient' when I point out some error in your position. You are not dumb.. but you are some combination of stubborn and resolute that you have the right answers..or at least that you don't have to accept that I DO because 'not everyone agrees with me'. You are flatly, absolutely, demonstrably incorrect about what 'appeal to authority & numbers' really means and when it is applicable. You apply a standard rule of argument incorrectly. But...*shrug*... that is about the only way you can deal with much of the points about science and evidence that I & others have made.... and at the same time you assert that religious beliefs are not required to meet the same standards of proof and evidence. You assert broadly that " I was referring more to experimental science being more in line with creation than evolutionism."...and you base this on - what? Experimental science confirms evolution-- over & over & over! And the 'dino bone soft tissue argument' has been refuted! You cannot demand that all possible data be required before the unusual situation is sensibly explained.


Do I sound frustrated? Yup....