That's where I disagree. Evolution is based on very non-permanent scientific data. Creationist Scientists have managed to keep a very consistant answer.
it's much easier to maintain a consistant answer when you can invent the answer as a simplistic "god did it" claim for everything. the only reason scientists don't remain "consistent" is because science is constantly evolving and evolutionists don't cling to a strict dogma of how it should be. creationists have never been able to prove their theory to maintain it, only refuse to refute it.

The thing that most people seem to forget is that one's faith in Evolution is just as much "based on the facts" as one's faith in God. Evolution has by no means been proven. That is fately misunderstood by those who believe in it and yet are not scientists themselves (aka normal people who believe in evolution based on what scientists TELL them).
nobody in the right mind has "faith" in evolution, they simply maintain that it is the theory with the most answers at present, a theory that is constantly growing and evolving. evolution and creationism are not just as much based on the facts. evolution is based on emperical evidence such is radiological carbon dating, fosil interpretation, and genetic consistencies. the only evidence intelligent design is based on, is evolutions lack therof is certain area's.

People often think christians are the ones in the dark who just don't see the obvious, but in truth it's the same for atheists. You're asked to pick a standpoint based on what you already know about life/the world/logic/etc, and to be honest, there is a solid standpoint from a christian point of view. We KNOW what we believe, but atheism gives a shakey ground at best that is ALWAYS changing.
again, atheism or evolution are not discredited because they have not yet determined all the answers. to say that christianity has more validity because of it's certainty is rediculous. a group of people forming an opinion, and refusing to budge in the face of numerous pieces of condradictory evidence isn't proof, it's stuborness, most often based on societal or family conditioning.


The funny thing is that the bible claims to be an historical account of what actually happened. Go read something in the bible, find the name of a place or city or person, and then go look it up and find out that it actually exists/existed...
I've no doubt that those places and people existed, but so what? If I write a book about a super powered holy man that takes place here in kelowna, B.C. and can prove kelowna exists, does that prove my tale? there's a fellow named benny hin who's a famous faith healer out of the united states. I'm pretty sure america exists and so does his home town and even him (considering I've seen him), doesn't mean a thing in prooving he has healing powers.