" as long as I explain what I mean [if need be] I don't see much of a problem.
using the term "

It is like categories of music, Pete. If all you are doing is filing your own LPs and CDs, any system is fine. YOU know what you mean, and silly attempts to tell you what should be called 'folk' is intrusive.

...however, if you are going to open a music store or run a concert series...etc., it is well to name and describe things in a way that is intelligible to as many as possible.

Modern science has moved way beyond the terms 'evolutionist' and 'Darwinist' in describing their position(s). On the other hand, various fundamentalist groups and individuals seem to adopt 'creationist' as a term of honor. If that is incorrect, let me know. But since scientists in general do not begin with religious premises, and proceed in very different ways than creationists in interpreting data, it is just jarring to hear the term 'creationist science'. They may do science part of the time, but when redefining terms to suit religious beliefs and going out of their way to look for ways to deny scientific research in order to make YEC compatible, they are simply not acting AS scientists. They have become adept at switching hats quickly... sometimes in the same speech or paragraph... but reinterpreting evidence that 99% of regular scientists agree on is anti-scientific. (just as someone writing a song on the way to the pub and introducing it as 'folk' is playing fast & loose with the term)

"re [3,] specific examples....well stuff like dating rocks of known recent age as myo. would you like the specific examples when I got more time ?

Yep... because geologists don't like being wrong, and they check on each other when measurements don't agree. So... "known by" whom? That IS why the scientific method so often refines it's specific conclusions... and very occasionally makes major modifications. As I said way above, Gould explains at great length how the amazing man, Wolcott, who found the Burgess fossils, made major errors in his methodology ... for various reasons. Others, who used the very same materials, thought a bit differently and reconciled some quite awkward ideas Wolcott had about categories. And they are still woring on some of the specimens to refine it. That is science.

I... ummm.. see very little progress in integrating the 'banned gospels' into the Bible, although many experts feel they were left out for political and other purposes.

4a...maybe so...


""...the 'easier' way...? going against the flow at best and martyrdom at worst ?!."

That is essentially 'Pascal's Wager'... but Pascal only allowed 4 options, when there are logically many others. (read about the various criticisms). Still... I do have sympathy for the idea, and see why in Pascal's formulation, it make sense to so many.. they just don't want to take chances. I also wonder if a god would not know when someone was merely formally 'believing' for the reward, instead of for doing good. *shrug*....