[Junior]

is an evolutionist interpretation of that record and there is a Creationist interpretation of that record. The two are not the same.

You're right. The evolutionist interpretation takes into account all the evidence from multiple lines of research. The creationist interpretation picks and chooses the evidence they need to "prove" their positions. However, considering your average creationist is either terribly ignorant or a blatant liar (cf., "Quote Mining"), such selective interpretation should be seen as par for the course.

[DannyTN]

"You're right. The evolutionist interpretation takes into account all the evidence from multiple lines of research. The creationist interpretation picks and chooses the evidence they need to "prove" their positions. ...gratuitous insult.

Creationists take into account all the evidence including the Word of God. That does cause us to question some of the other evidence a little closer and look for problems and solutions that the evolutionist would miss.

• For example, the evolutionist assumed all Argon would boil out of lava. Apparently they never tested it, because when Creationists did, it was a bad example.
• Evolutionists assumed the earth was eons old and therefore the fossil record was a very slow deposition. Creationist said no the earth isn't that old and we know there was a global flood, so much of it is probably due to catastrophism and not slow deposition. Evolutionists are now moving towards the creationist position.
• Evolutionists satisfied with the old ages argon was giving them tested rocks and anounced that the organic material in them were very old. Creationists tested the organic material and asked how young organic material could be buried in old rock.
• Evolutionists believing that man must have descended from the apes readily bought into Piltdown man, Nebraska man, and a host of others. Creationists said Hogwash, and eventually were proven right.
• Evolutionists found Lucy's skull in 100 pieces they assembled it to have a flat face like humans and announced they had found a missing link. Creationists assuming that there are no missing links, examined the skull and started pointing out features that were clearly austhrailepithene (sp?) and the evolutionists then reconstructed the skull to it's original ape configuration with a sloping face.

The list goes on and on... Creationists haven't been proved right on everything yet, but we have had some clear victories. As science progresses, I expect a lot more.