Are they ? And does that somehow make them less biased ? Up to now all I have seen evidence of is a 'creationist' who is accusing evolutionists of being liars. Is that what you mean by 'being more honest about being biased' ?
> you have said is that all evolutionists are liars. What a terrible way to
> start a conversation with an evolutionist.
Andrew: <<No, I didnt' say all Evolutionists are liars. I said that I don't trust them (maybe sometimes there's no difference.) >>
Then don't trust them and redo their calculations and their research. Dissing them just because they have honestly found data that you have some problems with is neither scientific nor convincing. It also does creationism no favour.
Andrew: <<But, as I made clear, I don't believe that any reviewers would let pass anything that is embarrasing to the Evolution model nor do I think it likely that any wanna-be-respected
researcher would even attempt to publish dates that would make his peers
"dis" him.>>
On the contrary. The researcher who could disprove evolution would gain quite some status. But the issue was, reliability of radiometric dating. Dates found by different methods and different researchers agree quite well and all show an earth of several billion years old. There are too much data coming the the same conclusion. So when faced with such data what can one do ? Accusing the other side of dishonesty without having proof of such is imho a evry poor form of logic and reasoning.
So Andrew do you have any proof supporting your 'feelings' and 'beliefs' ?