[b_sharp]

"Doesn’t negate their research. As a matter of fact, if you spend time reading their website, you will realize that they have gone beyond basic research to prove their tenets."

No, what it proves is that they are good at assuming their conclusions.

Science isn't about holding a conclusion and then attempting to prove that conclusion, it's about observing something in nature and then trying to understand that observation. The minute you need to introduce a 'miracle' to explain something, in other words, invoke a process that runs counter to all of our current understanding of the way nature functions, you have left the realm of science. Just the Noachian flood alone introduces multiple 'miracles' that do not jib with the remnants of historical events we have available for study. The flood only remains as a viable event (in the minds of creationists) if you distort the observation of 'clues' we have of those historical events, clues which can only be explained in light of multiple other clues and the 'laws' of physics.

[doc1019]

I guess that we will have to agree to disagree. I’m a Bible believing fundamentalist Christian that believes that the story of Genesis is correct.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

The minute you need to introduce a 'miracle' to explain something, in other words, invoke a process that runs counter to all of our current understanding of the way nature functions, you have left the realm of science.

In evolution theology miracles are called mutations. Creationism only requires a single miracle to create man, while the followers of Darwin require billions of miracles.