For the record, I find no one at all here who is a scientist or who sounds like a scientist. What I find generally are individuals venting their spleens, evidencing an unreasoning hatred of mainstream science, biblical scholarship, and other key academic areas. Not cool, guys. Also, I find there are many myths about science being paraded here. For example, one major reason why creationists are often scoffed at by scientists and serious students of science is that they maintain evolution claims we descended from monkeys. This is way off base and therefore shows a lack of sstute ness on the part of many creationists. Rather, the scientific claim is that a common ancestor branched into tow distinct lineages, one in the direction of apes, the other in the direction of early humanlike creatures. What was this common ancestor like? In 2007, a Japanese team of scientists found fossil remains, including a jaw bone, of what is believed to be this common ancestor. So it is also a creationist-generated myth that no one has any idea about what this common ancestor was like. Another common myth generated by creationists is that evolutionary science has produced no hard evidence. Really? Consider that science has demonstrated the age of the universe to be at least 13.5 billion years old. That sure is hare d evidence that invalidates the creationists' claims for a young earth. What has the response of creationists been? Setterfield, who has absolutely no background in astrophysics , simply tried to invalidate all scientific measure of c. He argued c was infinite at the beginning o of creation and has been slowing down ever since. Well, where is the evidence for that? All he could offer was an argument that estimates of c had been getting slower over the years. Wrong. A careful study of the historic estimates of c shows it has been getting faster. In addition, modern physics has carefully studied light and finds no variation in c. Yet creationists continue to insist the c was infinite at the beginning of creation. So who is flying without any real evidence? Another problem is that creationists often have no real credentials or education in science. Unfortunately, this is the case here. Hence, we have more than one self-appointed major critic of mainstream science who in no way, shape, or form possess anywhere near the qualifications and credentials to sit in judgment on mainstream science.