[sirchtruth]

Or how about this, like the story of a world wide flood? Tell me you have seen that happen.

No, but that's my point! I have NOT seen it! I see what looks like evidence of it and make a conclusion based on that evidence. Just like evolutionist, the difference is I don't call what I believe FACT, and tell people this is absolutely what happen. I leave room for other theories to be explored, eventhough I concluded a global flood did happen, but I'm honest enough to also say it's only ONE conslusion since I can't take people back in time to actually witness the event.

Evolutionist do not allow other views to be introduced. Why, because there is an agenda? An agenda to fool people into thinking this is ALL chance and there is no meaning to any of it, because logically that's what evolution leads too...now evo maybe true, but until I see some monkey turn into a man, or a half an eye, true transitional changes, (Not someone guess of a transitional change) it's all speculation and conjecture.

[Coyoteman]

Another citation for you to ignore:

Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition, by Mark Isaak

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"No, but that's my point! I have NOT seen it!"

Yet you claim that it is scientific to say that it happened.

"Just like evolutionist, the difference is I don't call what I believe FACT, and tell people this is absolutely what happen."

You don't? lol

"Evolutionist do not allow other views to be introduced."

Sure they do. The new view must have evidence to support it. Creationism/ID don't. They are not scientific claims; why should they be taken seriously?

"An agenda to fool people into thinking this is ALL chance and there is no meaning to any of it,..."

Natural selection is NOT a random process. As for meaning, NO scientific theory deals with *meaning*. That's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

".now evo maybe true, but until I see some monkey turn into a man, or a half an eye, true transitional changes, (Not someone guess of a transitional change) it's all speculation and conjecture."

If we saw a monkey turn into a man, it would disprove the ToE. Why must creationists wallow in such silly strawman arguments?