And Steve is usually the one who brings the subject up at the drop of a hat. I could let it go , but I think it worth correcting him for the benefit of anyone else who might want to know what I actually do say. Fossils are not fake and creationists expect there to be a lot of them from the upheaval of the flood.          Radioisotope readings are not fake, but they don't give consistent dates, and assumptions about the unobservable past have to be accepted to arrive at the dates. Different methods have often given wildly different dates , so why trust them so much? Sometimes rocks of known recent age have rendered readings from eons past.    He is not far out with the soft tissue though of course omitting why, ie practical science puts a limit on how long soft tissue can last , under various conditions but such are found often in specimens far too old.       Evolutionists can of course achieve repeatable observationaly verified science , but not in that area, because, believe it or not, time passes and it's gone.         If you can have an evolutionary scientist, you can have a creationist scientist (as historically ,most have been) and to say otherwise without substantiation , is just begging the question.      Yes, I trust the bible , and you trust evolutionism.    Yes, I believe evolutionism is a faith position , and religion , just as some evolutionists have also conceded.       So, tunesmith why do you trust it ?