[snarks_when_bored]

I'm a creationist. However, I've never claimed it's science. I do feel, though, that evolutionists have not proven their theory beyond a reasonable doubt. That is my basis for rejecting evolution.

If 'not being proved beyond a reasonable doubt' is to be one's criterion for rejecting a scientific theory, one would have to reject all of empirical science, don't you think?

[ShadowAce]

one would have to reject all of empirical science, don't you think?

Why? There are plenty of theories in science that are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I just have a problem with some of the interpretations of the evidence as it regards evolution.

For instance, now that Britain has found that its soil is releasing carbon due to global warming, wouldn't it be prudent to question the method of carbon dating? Isn't the "given" that carbon gets released at a steady rate over the millenia now debunked, and that the rate is determined by the warming and cooling cycles of the earth?

I am not a scientist, but I can think through evidence fairly well, and make connections to patterns.

[Deb]

Darwinists can't prove evolution. They can't replicate it. That's why it's a "theory", which is just another word for "Faith".

The thing I don't understand is why the monkey people are so hysterical about Intelligent Design. Why is your faith superior to our faith?