[Chiapet]

Ichneumon, Ichneumon...I have skimmed over the lengthy post #76 that you referred to in one of your previous posts. No doubt, it seems impressive, and I freely concede that I do not have the background in these fields of study, not to mention the sheer time it would take, to explore all of the citations, articles, ad nauseum that you list there.

However, it is not necessary for me to go on a fruitless quest to understand the minute details of everything that evolutionists allege in their papers and articles. That would be a tremendous waste of time and energy. The crux of the matter is that it still boils down to some basic questions that must be dealt with up front.

Setting the philosophical questions aside, the two biggest problems for the evolutionists are the absence of transitional fossil forms and the blind-faith assertion that macroevolution has occurred.

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry. I suppose this is way too long for "this is your brain on creationism"....

[2nsdammit]

I agree about laughing or crying....

One can give evidence, supported by scientific data, backed by all sorts of experts in the field in question; then, you get an answer like "Gee, I don't understand that stuff, it's too complicated, but I know it's wrong!" Frustrating.....

[PatrickHenry]

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry. I suppose this is way too long for "this is your brain on creationism"....

It qualifies with respect to the "creationism" part, but what about the "brain" element?