Philip I know I should not argue religion, its like beating your head against a wall, but your hypocritical poppycock deserves some response when you attack science, so for the sake of people like you who really dont understand how science works, I will say a few last words. Scientists are is not just people who have taken a course and memorised a few facts and theories, as with religious students, its a way of thinking where you learn to look gather data, and analyse and interpet it to fit into existing models or theories. If the data does not fit you firstly look for problems with the data and assumptions, if they are OK you look at refining the models or even making new ones. Its a very critical and sceptical process with a lot of checks and balances, mostly with the peer-review process, both formal and informal, which means that bad data and/or models will sooner or later be show up and replaced. There is also a lot of networking with specialists in areas you are not expert in, to minimise assumptions and mistakes. Of course there are always assumptions, we all live with assumptions like when we go to work in the morning you assume the car will work, the house wont burn down and your wife run off with the milkman, but we live with these sort of things by trying to be aware and conciencous etc. Scientific assumptions are continually being tested, refined and removed. We may get less sceptical as we age but luckily there are always younger scientists coming along and questioning the status quo. The scientific principles behind evolution and age dating are the same as that behind computers, jet planes, medicine, etc - science does work despite some assumptions and approximations, and getting very hard for others to understand. There is no way you can fit the history of the earth into the creation myth without ignoring the laws of physics (see Ian Plimers "Telling Lies for God"). Compare scientific assumptions with religious ones, where you have perhaps the worlds biggest assumptions: firstly that there is an interventionist god (who has apparently ignored us for the last 2000 yrs) secondly that we can understand the mind of god (a bit like bacteria pretending they understand us I reckon), and thirdly that the original writers of the holy books all had every word they wrote dictated exactly by god and preserved exactly. And of course these religious assumptions cannot be tested or even questioned.I cannot believe you can say you consider the old testament obsolete then demand we believe in the creation myth - its like saying you believe in Father Christmas but you know he doesnt you presents! Huh? I had a religious education (mostly wasted), and read a lot of the bible so am well aware of the many contradictions and immoral teachings you happily ignore, but read it sceptically as we all should, as a curious mixture of history and myths. Again you should read Ian Plimers "Telling Lies for God", as that is what you are doing, why he should need that sort of help we dont know, I would have thought he/she would rather we use are brains to think with. OK I know you will have damned my soul to hell by now but hope that I made you question yourself a little rather than just parrot the thoughts of numerous writers from thousands of years ago, whos words have been highly editted, translated, expurgated, etc but you still somehow consider them to be the undeniable word of god. Most scientists dont have a problem with the concept of god, we just dont accept that anyone can provide good evidence yet, its all based just upon thoughts in a few ancient peoples heads, brainwashed into young, unsceptical children. Our present society needs more free thinking and humanity and less blind belief.