Both evolutionists and creationists have beliefs. Both groups have the exact same data / evidence. They have different interpretations based on their beliefs.
But there is one big difference. Evolutionists are scientists, which means they know “their beliefs” are secondary to what nature says. So when two evolutionists find they disagree on the evidence, they both know the next step is to look for still other relevant data that will confirm just which of the differing beliefs is the correct one.
Paleontologists don't receive much recognition for uncovering yet another previously discovered fossil. However, they garner reputation and often funding dollars if they claim they have discovered something new...something they claim is 'important and teansitional'. (even though it bears strong resemblance to previous discoveries)
I note the clear implication that paleontologists are fundamentally dishonest and willing to falsify their data in order to garner recognition and funding. I am not nearly as inclined to impugn the integrity of scientists as you seem to be. On those rare occasions when dishonesty has been uncovered in a scientist’s work, then their value as a member of the scientific community is pretty much destroyed.
Most scientists are keenly aware that others will follow behind them, and those successors will nominally assume the correctness of the data they are given to start with. Mother Nature has no tolerance for error, and research built on a false foundation will usually be stymied. So a scientist who resorts to falsifying data will almost always eventually be exposed and disgraced.
Male / female, correct assembly of bone, appearance of the fleshed out individual, which similar fossils were same species (mating capability).
Good. I can think of others, but the point is that there are multiple clues as to how to correctly arrange the fossil puzzle. Fossils are arranged by more than whim in patterns clearly suggestive of common descent.
Physics and math are not a historical science.
When applied in certain fields, physics is a historical science. How about radioactive dating which almost exclusively deals with the past? Geophysics deal with things like historical changes in the earth’s magnetic field, astrophysics deals with stellar changes over eons of time, etc.
Determining species is sometimes an imprecise science with live animals...
“Sometimes”, meaning pretty rarely. If your argument rests on the exceptions rather that the rule, then you really don’t have much to go on.
That much more imprecise and inaccurate when examining old bones.
As you just acknowledged, there is a lot more to it than just looking at old bones.
Are you willing to consider that the data fits a super natural creation?
For a long time I did just that. But over decades, the realization slowly (too slowly) crystallized in my mind that positing “supernatural” anything was far more of a destructive cop-out than a productive line of reasoning. Go back two thousand years – why the almost total stagnation in understanding the world? Anciently what caused great storms – a supernatural God did – no further research needed on that question. Cause of comets – supernatural – next question. Plagues – judgement of a supernatural God – no research needed to get that answer. Floods, eclipses, lightning, earthquakes – all supernatural. Anything not understood, just chalk it up to God, no need to look any further.
Today I don’t see that the things we don’t understand are materially any different from those questions of old that science finally did provide natural answers for. To plug God in as the answer would be just as destructive to progress in understanding the natural world as shuttering all schools of science.
Almost all college graduates exit college 100% committed to evolutionism.
Way overstated. Most college grads – those not in the “hard” sciences – either follow their religious or traditional upbringing on the matter of origins, or simply don’t know or care much about the issue.
They have paid tens of thousands of dollars along with several years of their life being indoctrinated into a single belief system. It isn't easy after that to say 'I understand the material taught for which I received my degree...But I don't believe it'. Yet, it would seem tens of thousands of scientists have rejected the common ancestry belief system.
You are quite welcome to plays the numbers game, in whatever guise you present it, and yet the fact remains that these dissidents you often posit are impotent at challenging evolution in the arena of secular science. For gosh sake, when are you guys going to actually present a coherent alternative to evolution, that relies on something more substantial than nit-picking at the fringes of science and invoking a divine super-magician each time the going gets tough?
