> You might be surprised that I don't agree with the religious zealouts of the current day regarding this debate.
C'mon, Bubba. Give me a little more credit than that. I'd be pretty surprised if you did agree with them.
> After reading those links you might realize that the guy proves this by simply using a circular argument and attempting to redefine evolution giving it a much grander scope
Could you give an example?
> In fact if we could prove Creation then a whole lot of things have to change. If you accept Creation then you must accept there is a God. Since creation is written in the Bible and you accept creation as true, then you must accept the Bible as true or at least the part about creation.
This only applies if you prove Biblical creation is true. What if any of the other multitudes of creation stories were proven true? What if we found out the Viking creation story was the real way it happened?
> I'm also intelligent enough to understand that it cannot be taught, presented, or argued as a science. Ever.
Please go to the various schoolboards around the country that are talking about teaching Intelligent Design as a viable scientific theory and tell them that please