Sorry bill, but you are still not reading me accurately. I have never denied the faith factor in my belief , though holding that it is not unreasonable faith.   You,s all however are claiming the intellectual high ground for what I say is a philosophical stance rather than an objective scientific and logical position. So the greater onus, I suggest rests on the evolutionist here to provide far more evidence than the argument that most scientists accept it. I am not claiming that I can prove, or give enough evidence for my position, other than point out where yours is contrary to the scientific method ( btw, I see you bypassed my point on that !) , which of course does blow a hole in yours, if I can demonstrate the force of the argument against your belief and thus open the way for alternative answers.    Your dismissal of creationist sights as opposing "science" seems very self serving.    It is no use dismissing them as contrary to accepted science if you cannot argue the points they raise. .....Consensus" science "is not science.            And the careful experiments you mention, when applied to origins science are 1 interpreted according to assumptions that cannot be verified.....because the past is gone. And 2, the dates arrived at by different methods have often give wildly conflicting results, sometimes spectacularly out.