Yes, I am quite familiar with the scientific process, and much like everyone else on these threads, believe that there is a deeper understanding of scientific theory, and a higher degree of accuracy now than there's ever been before. However, I think there is a necessity for a line to be drawn when it comes to conclusions of the past based on the observations of today. And - also, there as been, and will continue to be a great amount of deception and mis-information diseminated from the world of evolution - as much has there has been in the word of religion. Just as there are hundreds - if not thousands of "false prophets" in religion - using it as a means to their own ends, so too are there hundreds, if not thousands of scientists who's very livelyhood requires that evolution be "accepted" - despite whether it's true or not. This is where the subtlety of "conjecture" turns into "universal truth". Some prime examples of this are Haeckels Law, long proven to be a hoax, yet still included in every science book taught in schools, Lucy and the "imagined" models created from a torso of which only 40 % of it's parts were found, Piltdown man, Nebraska man (in reality, a tooth of a pig) - and the list goes on.

I just don't see any emperical evidence for Evolution, and I don't find the premises for dating an old earth to be acceptable. Too many unanswered questions to believe that dating anything older than 5 or 6 thousand years is even possible. It's just "wishful thinking" that "given the premises to be true" of materials "believed" to be ancient were in fact what they are claimed to be when they were in their "original" (or parent) state, given the observation of the daughter status.

My position on Creationism is from the mere perspective of observation (seeing the world outside my front door) and the complexity of life. Though I have never, and will never claim there is "evidence" for a creation - I see no reason to think it is disprovable. I do, however, think that many claims of evolution are disprovable. Due simply to the fact that the continued experiments to transform one species (or kind if you will) into another has a zero percent success rating. Also - despite the fact that we can observe mutation _within_ a species, it has yet to be shown, under any circumstance, that any DNA information has been ADDED within these mutations. It's only been demonstrated that information is lost.

I don't think that any of the alternative theories (UFO's for example, or alien hosts) are any more plausable than either Evolution or Creationism, and need a great deal more "faith" to believe in them than either of the main two that are discussed. I think the option lies with Abiogenisis or Creationism, and either one is only true on a faith based level. Three's just no means to take it beyond that using either science - or empirical evidence.
It centers largely on one's world view, and how they determine to interpret the facts. some see fossils and precieve them to be within the tree of evolution, and millions of years old, others see a fossil and believe it was created, and no more than 6,000 years old. Science can do nothing to prove either of them correct, as too much information is missing which can never be recreated, or accumulated to insure the accuracy of interpretation.

And I don't think that belief in one - negates the other. Just because one erson has belief in one world view does nothing to discredit belief in the other.

Evolution is more plausible because because there is evidence all around us in nature.

But evolution can't even explain the nature we see all around us. Ever examine the evolutionary account of how birds got their wings? Rediculoius, and the observable evidence contradicts the theory.
There are numerous developments of animals that are not explained by evolution. "We're working on that" they say.

My requirements for plausability are a bit higher than "We're working on that".

Actually it does explain that. Wings are an enviromental adaptation.What observable evidence contradicts this theory? Its kind of obvious that there are many forms of plants and animals of the same species but adapted to different enviroments and they took different forms in the past when enviromental conditions were different. For example, most animals in the past were much bigger (like dinosaurs)when enviromental conditions were more suitable to large forms.Do you deny this?

Actually it does explain that. Wings are an enviromental adaptation.What observable evidence contradicts this theory? Its kind of obvious that there are many forms of plants and animals of the same species but adapted to different enviroments and they took different forms in the past when enviromental conditions were different. For example, most animals in the past were much bigger (like dinosaurs)when enviromental conditions were more suitable to large forms.Do you deny this?