Can I ask one question of all the people who are saying that science can not support creation? Have you studied the science that is used to support evolution? Have you looked into how the scientific evidence can be interpreted to support creation?

I am a scientist, I have done both. I studied chemistry, geology and physics at university, and while I have not looked studied much in the area of biology, I have a friend who studied extensively in that area and has talked to me in great detail about her studies and her beliefs.

Even before I became a Christian, I had serious doubts about the science used to support the age of the Earth, which is one of the things that the theory of evolution is based upon. When the scientists are saying that they use radioactive dating of rocks (I can't remember the exact isotopes, but it's not carbon-14!) to date the Earth and because of what they have discovered there, the Earth is many millions of years old... and then in the next breath talk about how they used this dating method on rock formed in a volcanic eruption that is known to be only around 10 years old and it dates again at several millions of years old... How can this method be trusted with any degree of accuracy? This was something that stuck in my mind and cast doubt on the rest of the scientific claims made in the name of supporting evolution.

In studying the scientific evidence and how it can support creation - I found absolutely no inconsistencies like that I found above.

Now, can we please stop writing me off as a brain-washed fundamentalist who believes all that she is fed? Please?

Also, I have to absolutely agree with Nelle here. We can't pick and choose which parts of the bible are truth and which are not. Who gets to decide which bits are fact and which are not if we are going to go down that path?

BW