Originally posted by belgianfreakBelgianfreak - specifically, what problems have you found with the fossil record? Supposed "gaps" in the record seem to be more of a misconception than scientific fact; there are plenty of fossils of transitional life forms that support evolutionary theory. That's interesting what you've said about carbon dating - without seeing the paper I can't offer any sort of explanation. The age of the universe as approximately 13 billion years old has been verified by looking at distribution of cosmic background radiation, and in another experiment at almost the same time, the details of which I cannot remember.
which evidence would you be talking about? Serious question, becasue (as I've said before) I'm currently researching both sides as impartially as possible. So if you know of some hard evidence that I can look at it could save me some time, but at the moment I have reason to doubt fossil records (like polystrate fossils) & carbon dating (and all the ot ...[text shortened]... gs (growth or coral reefs, helium efflux in the atmostphere) indicate a much younger earth.
If you'd like to see proof of evolution at a microbiological level, just set up an antibiotic selection screen in E. Coli and you'll have an elegant proof in just a few hours. Those who would descry this as "microevolution" vs. "macroevolution" fail to understand that evolutionary theory makes no such distinction - evolution is the accumulation of small changes such as these over time.
Are there any other, more specific concerns that you have? I'd be interested to hear what you have discovered in your investigation of this question.
-mike