More lies from the creationists ...

Carbon dating is extremely reliable and reproducible - characteristics never associated with any god. It relies on the halflife of the 14C isotope, produced primarily in the upper atmosphere via collisions with very high speed particles streaming from the sun. The production rate isn't quite constant, but it doesn't vary too much - without techniques for compensating for the varying production you'll get age estimates off by a few decades, but certainly not 100s or 1000s of years. Dinosaur fossils contain no measurable 14C because they're just too old. The theories of the evolution of the sun can be used to estimate 14C production over the past few billion years and the claims of these theories are consistent with all other observations and consistent with themselves. Religious 'theories' contradict not only themselves but various other religious claims, and most importantly they contradict observed reality. There is no faith in science; it remains believable because there are no contrary observations or self-negating claims.

This ark with dinos is underhanded - yet another impressive display to fool people. Kids are impressionable and may equate magnificence with truth - after all the Catholic church (and other cults before and after) have been playing this game for over 4 millenia - the great pyramids, the great churches through the ages, the Grecian and Roman temples, the two temples of Solomon, the mormon temple in Salt Lake City, the Valley of the Dead - the list just runs on.

These religious proofs are always good for a laugh. In perhaps the most famous case in the past 800 years we have the Shroud of Turin. It is an ancient and beautiful piece of art (even with the fire damage). The date of the artwork can be pinned down fairly accurately due to the church archiving numerous letters on the subject from the era it was created. 14C dating has demonstrated that the shroud was indeed created around the time claimed by these letters. Case closed? Oh no, "god zapped the shroud during the resurrection so its 14C content is much higher than any normal piece of cloth from that era". The image isn't produced by any sort of staining by animal fluids (or god fluids for that matter), the image shows traces of substances used as pigments from the era in which the shroud was produced. Ok, so it's a fake after all? Oh no, god's essence transformed the cloth. Of course the most damning evidence are the letters from the various clergy who investigated the shroud when it first appeared and concluded that it was a hoax. For centuries the church in Rome did not acknowledge the shroud as a holy relic, but it remained popular and around 200 years ago it seems that even Rome decided it must be genuine.

Isaac Newton was also a rabid believer in the occult - raising the dead, commanding nature, and all that sort of stuff. His notes on the occult aren't worthy of printing except perhaps by a philosopher who's obsessed with the minutiae of why he failed. Newton also had numerous incorrect hypotheses about light and color, but as admirable as his work was on celestial mechanics, they had no bearing whatsoever on his work on light and colors; in modern books Newton barely scrapes by with the credit of discovering the infrared region of the spectrum.
Quoting Newton's own thoughts about the preternatural is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to authority. I prefer Einstein because he had a sense of humor: Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not too certain about the universe. Of course there are modern scientists who do believe in the great bogeyman - perhaps one of the best known is Freeman Dyson. However, the majority of scientists cannot believe in a god despite the fact that some make the awful mistake of saying things like "it's as if it were designed by a sentient being" and misusing the word 'god' in a non-religious context.

i guess im just trying to say you cant say ether are right and the other is wrong. Othough I myself have a different veiw.
one reason why you cant reject ether is becouse there isnt any solid enough facts around.
two. both have good reasoning and support there for cannot be taken as "silly" or otherwise.

I re-read my argument and there are points within it which your right, that couldnt be taken seriously be anyone scientific education.

olso there are good arguments towards things like the big bang and creation in a scientific manner. like the point their is an abundance of fossils on the earths crust in the top 3rd i believe and before that is pretty well nothing.(i read this quite a while ago)feel free to prove me wrong.

also saying creation is for scientificly illiterate is very stereotypical as many scientifically illiterate believe in evolution.