"Have you read Darwin? Have you read Huxley? Have you read anyone except the narrow minded creationist blather. I suppose you think the book, "The Genesis Flood" is very scientific and proper, eh. Well, I have read that to and found it to be unapplicable to scientific standards."

I'm not sure you are a person to hold any book
up to your scientific standards. Maybe you are a scientist, but so is the man who wrote that book.

"It is based on too many assumptions that cannot be verified through evidences in the fossil/rock record."

Your theory is based on even more false evidences.
Look at my most recent post about the fact that you have no transitional fossils: http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/17443.shtml

"You sound as though you know nothing about the nature of science or its idealistic motives."

Do I really? I apoligize if I come across that way, so far I have tried to keep it as scientific
as possible. You may not agree with my conclusions, but I have tried.

"Maybe God plays a role and maybe he doesn't, but the bible does not hold the literal truth. It holds stories, that is it!!"

True stories, yes. For example, the great flood
recorded in the Bible is supported in the fossil record and also many cultures around the world
have a story of a great flood.

• Creationism - darwinpoodle - May 15, 2002 - 00:41 UTC
  • I'm glad you agree. But you are wrong about the scientist. - kc2gwx - May 15, 2002 - 02:02 UTC
    • Sorry you are wrong - darwinpoodle - May 15, 2002 - 12:43 UTC
      • Ridiculous! - kc2gwx - May 15, 2002 - 14:37 UTC
        • Not close minded - darwinpoodle - May 15, 2002 - 16:11 UTC
          • bad grammar - "their work, their conclusions (nt) - darwinpoodle - May 15, 2002 - 16:16 UTC
          • Intangible - kc2gwx - May 15, 2002 - 16:36 UTC
            • You win - darwinpoodle - May 15, 2002 - 17:10 UTC
            • You win! - darwinpoodle - May 15, 2002 - 17:10 UTC