bill, can I ask that you frame your own arguments. posting a link is fine, and if I knew how to do it , I might do so too, but I hope as extension of the point rather than instead of actually making the point myself. the fact is , the dino bone soft tissue argument has not been refuted as yet. but I will look at links later, if I get time. but , unless this link proves otherwise, these finds contradict experimental science, IF- dem bones is really myo !.
I do note that you express the ideas about dog breeding as evidence for evolutionism, but again, that is natural/artificial selection, and is part of the creation model also.
and now to your post many post past.
maybe, I had not expressed myself well, but you are quite right that many of the bible details are confirmed in archaeology, but I was referring more to experimental science being more in line with creation than evolutionism.
in your next paragraph you again do the bait and switch thing. of course I would be unlikely to doubt the scientists in regard to farming, as their findings are observationally, experimentally verified in the present. what happened in the [alleged] aeons past is not observable, but is interpreted from data. worldview colours this interpretation.....as testified to even by hostile witnesses.
your charge that I am discounting the mass of sites that believe evolutionism, is just, seems to me, yet another appeal to numbers and authority.
the last paragraph, looks like you are saying that I am using illogical arguments, by comparing them to a formulae you heard 60 yr ago [and which I have not used!]. I may well make some logic errors, but sometimes you say I have, but I have not always agreed.
even college educated can get it wrong sometimes!.