[Exnihilo]

I agree with you. These things are ultimately beyond our ability to know with certainty. The only thing that grates my nerves is how the naturalists who espouse Darwinian orthodoxy pretend that they do so from an objective, unbiased view point; that their desires, psychological make-up, or feelings towards religion and/or God(s) do not in any way effect the way that they view and/or interpret the evidences presented by both sides. The "Creationists" (whatever that happens to mean at any given time in a discussion), readily admit that they are theistic, and make no bones about their feelings about God and/or religion. The gaul of the naturalists to sit there and honestly claim that they are some how "more objective" than the opposition is the height of absurdity. They make themselves look worse with the never-ending name calling, the attempts to insult and intellectually marginalize those who disagree with them, and on and on. Table pounding rhetoric may convince those who want to believe, but it doesn't persuade anyone who has critical thinking skills.

[Sabertooth]

The gaul of the naturalists to sit there and honestly claim that they are some how "more objective" than the opposition is the height of absurdity.

A height equalled frequently by literal Creationists when they beat their heads against the wall with the same bad science over and over again.

I find it a reasonably accurate prejudice to assume that Creationists make bad scientists and Evolutionists make bad theologians.

I will agree that Evolutionists are not so aware as they should be when they are tramping in theological woods.