Evolution is based on scientific facts, while Creationism is a common pseudoscience

I think that it is necessary that I explain science and the scientific approach to opposing claims. When I say that "The entire spirit of the scientific community is rooted with inaccuracies and collaboration"I mean that the science that we believe changes, and gets better with time. Just like step proof, it is necessary to have perquisites that are a postulate or theorem. You constantly lack evidence and citations to almost all facts and reports, and these "Scriptures" are not a reliable source. You even neglect to explain what scriptures. Therefore, your perquisite cannot be determined, and therefore you cannot use them. "Your scientists are are coming up with theories trying to support evolution, and are ready to lie about their observations to do it." Wrong. A scientist would never lie in an observation unless they were looking to be fired. They would become outcast to the scientific community, discredited, and striped of all merits. How dare you accuse an entire community of lying. We may have our innacuracies, but at least we are honest about it. That is why a world wide community of scientist who should refrain from fabricated evidence strives to improve our understanding of the universe. You also give examples (without a source) of failures of carbon dating. It actually does have a relevance to the exposure to the surface and any other active source of carbon. But in most of these examples, it shows that these samples are at least much older than 6000 years. "Modern radiocarbon dating assumes that the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio in living organisms is the same now as it was in ancient organisms before they died. In other words, the system of carbon- 14 production and decay is said to be in a state of balance or equilibrium." The above statement is not accurate and is highly misleading. When the method was first developed in the late 1940s and for a few years afterward, the method did make the assumption mentioned. As a rough approximation, the assumption is valid. However, as an increasing number of carbon-14 dates were obtained, including many on objects of known age, it became clear that the assumption was not strictly true. This fact has been known to the scientific community for several decades and correction factors have been developed to adjust for the fact that the production rate of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has not been completely constant over the past few thousand years. In other words, modern radiocarbon dating uses a calibration method to correct for the problem that are viewed as a critical weakness of the method. (http://www.ntanet.net...) Dr. Ken Dill provided the following comments on the claims of Thompson and Harrub. Dr. Dill is the coauthor of the book; "Molecular Driving Forces, Statistical Thermodynamics in Chemistry and Biology". He has also has more than 160 peer reviewed papers to his credit. He is Professor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry at the University of California at San Francisco. His comments are as follows: In their item, Thompson and Harrub (T&H) state that "the second law of thermodynamics strictly prohibits organic evolution". I disagree. The Second Law does not prohibit evolution. The Second Law has very little bearing at all on evolution. The premises behind item of T&H are that: according to the Second Law, closed systems tend toward increased entropy, living systems are more "ordered" than nonliving systems, and entropy is a measure of "disorder". Therefore, according to T&H: living systems must have lower entropy than nonliving systems. T&H conclude that biological evolution toward increasing complexity would violate the Second Law. http://www.ntanet.net...) I propose that due to mutual lack of time, we postpone/ continue this debate for the following week