I have to admit, congrats on living in Kelowna. Beautiful place...beautiful bud

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 idea behind creationism is taking what the bible says and looking for proof by scientific means. Yes we use the bible as a guideline, a presupposition if you will, but it's the goal of FINDING out whether or not this thing is accurate. The bible claims that God made the earth, that there was a global flood, and many other things... now what creationists try and do is test those claims...look for proof of them. If the bible says there was a global flood, and there is a lot of evidence for a flood (btw here), and it seems obvious that this outrageous claim of the biblical flood COULD be true (nothing's PROVEN yet ) than we must take into consideration that the creation of the earth in six 24 hour days would also be literal, or even that God exists all together. (Btw the FLOOD isn't the only other thing that creationists are looking for proof of.) My argument here is that there is a lot of evidence, historical records, geological evidence for the things that are in the bible, therefor it's reasonable to conclude that the bible could also accurate in it's description of the creation.

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.

-So you're telling me that those who claim that evolution is true do not have "faith" in it? I assume you mean that these people claim they "think" it's true. Just so you know I'm not arguing the "I.D" theory, but rather the christian one. Evolution is based on ones faith that the claims in the bible of the creation, purpose, existence of, and direction of the human race and life in general is false. That is IT'S presupposition, and it goes for any religion that gives a different account of the creation of existence other than evolution as well. The idea that we've "found this truth" through carbon dating, fosil interpretation, and genetic consistencies is something I also have a problem with...just because I've heard two different answers from two different sides, neither more credible than the other. Creationists would tell you are genetic consistencies would argue in favor of the mitocondrial Eve, aside from the obvious decay of the human "gene" as the generations come and go. As well, carbon dating and fosil interpretation (don't forget that word) are in the hands of fallible men. The idea that fossils look millions of years old parallels the creationist argument that the extreme wieght of water in a global flood could infact give them that appearance.

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

I'm saying christianity has an answer to the question. Evolution has an ever changing answer due to misinterpreting evidence, new evidence, and a lot of estimation. I'm saying christianity is the argument FOR something, and evolution is simply the argument(s) against it. The problem is sometimes those arguments collide into one another and shatter, whereas creationists seem to have the same answer.

If I could give you an anology...I was building shelves for my girlfriend this week so:

Think of 5 people building 5 shelves. Two of those five people claims to have this set of directions that they found in the box. The other 3, being smart individuals, decide they will try and build the shelves themselves, through trial and error, because they don't believe that those directions are accurate. Whether or not that booklet of directions is right or wrong is something we won't be able to see until it's finished (aka when we die), but I can assure you that the 2 guys with the directions will have at least made the same thing, and will be able to see why/how everything got pieced together and how the thing works, without having to go through the mess of getting it wrong and having to start over again many times. Likewise I claim that as man becomes more advanced in science, the more christianity will appear evident in it's claim of creation (that is if mankind decides to be honest with it's use of science)

btw, I feel I should mention that individuals who claim to be of the christian religion should not represent that religion. I think I know who Benny Hinn is (is he an east indian guy?)...if it's who I think it is than he is one of those guys with a mask who claims to be of God but isn't. There are a lot of people who wish to undermine christianity, and some try to do it from the inside so that others see them and make assumptions about the religion. Kind of like how all Muslims are 6ft 6, and live in caves with AKA47's.