Everyone fits the data to their belief, whether it is evolution or creation, because they already "know". "Discovered through science" is begging the question, because you have to assume evolution is true before you discover things about evolution which supposedly contradict creation.
Are you seriously suggesting that this is how scientists think? Evolution is not something you believe or don't believe in, the way you believe or don't believe in creation, making your statement here a false equivocation. Evolution is a theory which fits the observed data, the same as all other scientific theories. It is not something you have to 'assume' is true in order to make discoveries about it (the same as other sciences), and thus your statement that discovering something is "begging the question" is false.
Point me some data, and I will point you some creation.
Alright, explain how the finding of 33,000 year old canine remains that are more closely related to domestic dogs than to wolves is compatible with your 6,000 year creation timeline. You know, from the link you posted a bit ago. Please note that a mere repetition of your statement that there are 'problems' with c-14 dating, making the date 'unreliable', is not acceptable since you have given nothing to support that assertion here.
What kind of variations are you looking for? "If fossil x has y amount of c-14, it is z years old", is the assumption that is used, and ANYthing that is dated with c-14 will be recorded as a certain age, but that will never take into account the problems I suggested, and therefore there cannot be any signs of error.
The reason it doesn't take those so-called problems into account is because we have never found any evidence to suggest that they existed to begin with. Science is about working with the way things actually are, rather than the way we think they should be. In other words, find evidence to support the assertions
you made a few hours ago.
Why are you calling me on using theistic evolutionists? Atheism much more clearly demands evolution. http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Darwin_made_it_easy_to_become_an_intellectually_fulfilled_atheist
I'm calling you on using theistic evolutionists because you do not believe in theistic evolution, or evolution at all for that matter. By your own words, you are a young-earth creationist who considers the whole concept of evolution to be false. Furthermore, it is obvious you picked that particular wiki page because the quote supported what you wanted to assert - but you clearly were only interested in the quote, without checking its context or to see if other scientists agreed with him or not.
By the way, there are at least six major fallacies associated with the statement you linked, which are noted on that very page. Indeed, this page is listed under the category "Creationist claims". You might want to check your sources out a bit more carefully, so as to avoid picking out something like this which harms your case far more than it helps.
The article I quoted presumably uses carbon dating, which I already discussed. Would you rather I quote creationist sources? Because you seem to be upset about anything else.
The problem is, by using these sources, you are effectively trying to have your cake and eat it too - you pick out things that purportedly support one point you're trying to make, but try to ignore or disregard the inherent problems they cause for your position as a whole. I mean, you disagree that carbon-dating is reliable, which pretty much negates the conclusion of the article - yet you try to use part of that very same conclusion to support your own argument.
Different Genetic codes are a much more difficult hurdle to overcome than you seem to think. Yes, dogs and cats have the same genetic code, but this was used as a more general argument against evolution.
Not really. Genetic codes are not nearly as constant as you seem to think they are. Yes, there are mechanisms to conserve a genome, but that isn't as meaningful as you seem to think it is, especially when you're talking about genome recombination in descendants (and by extension, what must have happened in their parents)
It's another hurdle for evolution to overcome.
Why is it a hurdle?
Thats certainly not always the case http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9402-bats-and-horses-get-strangely-chummy.html
Actually, this doesn't counter my argument at all. All I was saying is that physical similarities paired with DNA similarities make it more probable that there was a common ancestor, not that you had to have both for there to be a common ancestor.
EDIT: Let me add something that's not directly related to the post. I do appreciate your willingness to take criticism into account. You started using paragraphs after I pointed it out, and you stopped using stuff that came across as ad hominems as well. I do appreciate that - there are more than a few people who would not care what someone who opposed them has to say about things not directly related to it.
I don't have any particular vested interest in trying to make you change your mind about evolution. As long as you spend time thinking about it and take what I say into account, instead of simply posting knee-jerk responses, that's good enough for me. And if you help me to think or to improve my arguments, even better.