Good grief. Take a look at just about every one of PatrickHenry's posts that supposedly brought forth some new evidence to "confirm" evolutionary theory. Those articles always had some scientist describing how the find fit in with the theory. And that circular logic was always fairly well exposed in the course of the discussion on the thread. For example, some fossil is discovered which is spliced into the "Tree of Life." Why is it assumed that this new discovery necessarily has to be a "missing link" in the development of species, and wasn't, rather, just a dead-end that resulted in the ascent of nothing?
And as to the biblical story of origins, I have my own beliefs, but frankly, it's much more fun tearing down the presumptions of the Darwinists. All that has to be shown is that Darwinism isn't as bulletproof as the professional evolutionists say it is.
Exactly what will be accomplished once that has been shown, assuming there's some way to reach an agreement on how to measure bulletproofing of an abstract, so we'll know when it's actually been done.