No, the Bible isn't a science book. It was written before the observation of science we now have today. People a few thousand years ago weren't going to go, well, just in case some guy in the 21st century can't work it out for himself we better include the exact details on how the flood water receeded. No, it wasn't written for some biology nerds, it was written for humans to understand the history of the earth, gain a relationship with God and see what's to come of the future. Why is it that you evolutionist always need stuff explained? Using the model the Bible maps out you have a lot of room for all the sciences to work with. And unlike evolution basic laws don't contradict it but rather abide by it. Perhaps you should go and study creation and see what it has to offer, not just ask questions on an internet forum, go buy some books from the real creationist who not only have a far better understanding of the ToE than you but can answer all your petty questions. I'm not saying creation is with out a doubt right, it's just that the creation argument is so damn hard to knock unlike the evolution argument. I've found creation to be rather scientific, even more so than evolution, which is what I'd call science fiction.
quote:No, you have faith. We hold that scientific theories that best explain observable evidence is best. If new evidence comes along, a new theory can be made, meaning we never "believed" the first one, we just held it up as the best explanation at the time.
How far from the truth could you want to be. I'm a student and they just jam it in your face, not just at school but on the TV, saying this is fact you must believe it. Whenever you point out problems with it, or ask a simple question they just turn a blind eye or ridicule you. Creation isn't fully set down and can't budge. They just explore the evidence and see why the Biblical events are very plausible and most likely happened. There ideas on how it could of happen change from time to time, but the model stays. How is this any different with evolution? You are doing exactly the same thing, you have a model set down and you explore the evidence to see why this could be possible. This is hardly like drawing the scientific conclusion to gravity. It's not examine the evidence and develop a theory, it's develop a theory and examine the evidence. Please tell me how the ToE is so drastically different from creation. Or is it just people being ignorant on the unknown?
[This message has been edited by RetroCrono, 12-23-2001]