Just wanted to note in passing with a recent second look at evolution, that it is fraught with difficulty and gray issues and is thus far from effectively challenging the Bible. Like the ice core issue at the poles. They allegedly amount to millions of years when the gas particles are tested, etc. But then I found out underneath all that ice they found tropical plants!!! That's always been a pro-Flood argument. So I just gave up. The science is either too sketchy or advanced for the average person to really consider it as any kind of a preemptive evidence to dmiss their belief in the Bible.
Furthermore, one must consider specifically the type of God Yaweh is and what we're dealing with. He enjoys catches the wise in their cunning and throwing the non-believers for loops. So who knows what secret "exceptions to the rule" are being hidden from scientists or what kinds of games God is playing with the scientists to make them come to the wrong conclusions? So this God messes with the minds of the scientists even at the theoretical levels potentially, like the lava flow dating via argon gas where an intense concentration of argon gas caused lava flows to be dated millions of years when they were known historically to have erupted just 50 years ago or so. Scientists adapted their testing methods and made exceptions to the rule, but that's the whole point. What scientific curves are out there that scientists can't possibly see by what is left. As a result the error margin is a great one. So even if one were to seriously look at evolution theory and earth-age theory, there is a lot of things that are problematic or inconclusive at every turn, so you just have to table it. And that explains why the debates go on and on and on. If there was anything absolutely definitive, evolutionists would bring it up every time to shut down the creationists. But there's nothing like that; everything has issues.
In the meantime, some theories fall flat. Like I've heard that flowers under the "survival of the fitest theory" developed their colors and sweet nectar to attract bees so they could get pollinated. Now that seems perhaps logical in the most extreme sense. But as one detractor pointed out, some things are here that don't seem to be related at all. I mean, why did the pear tree develop sweet fruit? Why would it need to? Yet the creationist sees the variety of fruit and other foods as a demonstration of God's love and artistry. It's clear to us that this is a FRUIT tree that is simply doing what it was designed to do, which is to provide food for US and the animals. But what are we doing for the fruit trees in such a direct manner that they evolved and adapted, say from an oak tree or some other non-fruit-bearing tree?
In the meantime, if just for a moment we considered a pear as provided by God for our enjoyment and nourishment, how wonderful indeed it's creator must be! I mean, it has a beautiful skin, a pleasant smell, it's there just waiting for us to harvest and enjoy. It has a good shelf life. It's nourishing. A perfect food. And what are we to think? "WOWWWWW, what another beautiful ACCIDENT/MUTATION of evolution? " No. And things like this is precisely why you get all those "evolution is a completely STUPID theory" because it just goes so far beyond "reason" when you look at it from certain points of view. You know? Given the choice between IB (intelligent being) or IA (incredible accident), I choose the former without hesitation every time....
Dave2002