[editor-surveyor]

Yes, you clearly are a bigot, like the usurpers that have taken over the smithsonian, and an authoritarian.

The evidence fits creation like a glove, and even with the insane stretch jobs that are allowed to prevail, does not fit evolution at all. Your willing blindness to those undeniable facts disqualifies you from further discussion here.

[DaGman]

If the Book of Genesis were never written, would you think creationism was true? Would there even be a thing called "creationism"?

[49th]

If the "evidence fits creation like a glove" how did a scientific institution such as the Smithsonian come to be so staunchly evolutionist?

While I think that in this case the Smithsonian is clearly in the wrong and is doing a disservice to scientific inquiry by acting in the manner which has been reported; it doesn't make the creationist or intelligent design argument more valid.

The idea of Evolution fought incredible opposition when it was first explained. The whole of the English speaking world was Christian, every scientist sought to use science as a way to show the glory of God in the world... and yet slowly the idea took hold. How could that happen if the evidence didn't support it? If the evidence clearly supported the idea that the Earth is young and that every creature was created as it is now, how could a theory which is so antithetical to the world view of the society from whence it came ever gain widespread acceptance?

[si tacuissem]

Your willing blindness to those undeniable facts disqualifies you from further discussion here.

Undeniable facts? Like your claim that Lifespans are exactly the same now as they were when the Lord walked the Earth? That's science?