Actually, the Big Bang theory allows there to have been a setting of initial conditions at all and therefore allows a creator. The continuous universe theory, in which the universe did not start at a singularity, actually disallows any position a creator might had because there would be no chance for initial conditions to be set. This is of course assuming the creator hasn't been there all the time and just decided the time to create earth and all the rest arbitrarily. So, the big bang theory is actually good news for creationists.

I bolded that one statement because you can say that about anything. Anyone can "interpret" anything they want about anything. Two people can read the same book, watch the same movie and get different things out of it - that's why more than one person writes a review or criticism, because one person's opinion is not law. Two people can see smoke in the distance; one thinks a house is on fire and one thinks it is a campfire. The point is, I could say you are interpreting the bible the way you want because that's the way you want to interpret the bible. What if I read the bible and interpreted it completely different? No one who had anything to do with the bible is around to tell us what they really meant when they wrote it. As we won't get anywhere arguing about this, just leave it alone. It's like the kettle calling the frying pan black.

No scientist talks about what color animals were based on their bones... that's just artistic license for movies and pictures. Although they did find one incredibly well preserved fossil lately that still flesh on it.

Don't be so hasty to discredit rocks as sources of information. We know animals with flat teeth nowadays eat plants, right? The flat teeth grind up the plants. It stands to reason that teeth bones that are flat from a fossil were also used to eat plants. Plant fossils found near the plant-eater are probably what was eaten. Finding groups of dinosaur fossils together suggests they lived in herds. Sharp-toothed dinosaurs probably ate meat. Scientists can easily tell the age of rock using carbon dating and relative dating. If we find 100 dinosaur fossils in the same area, you can start to make connections between how they might have interacted. None of this sounds that far fetched - they are perfectly reasonable conclusions based on simple logic. These people aren't just pulling this out of their butt, and they certainly aren't guessing.

Uh, what? How does this evidence I just talked about support creationism? I thought you just said we had a time-limit of a couple thousand years after creation. Those rocks they are finding are millions of years old. Also, you have the common misconception that scientific theory is a "guess" or "just a theory". Scientific theory is based on hundreds of thousands of experiments that the theory correct predicts. When's the last time something you dropped floated up to the sky instead of falling to the ground? Hence the theory of gravity. The theory of evolution is similar in this manner.

This is the second time you said "the evidence supports creation more than evolution". What exactly are you referring to? You immediately contradicted yourself as evolution requires millions of years while the bible only allows several thousand. Again, the rocks we've found, i.e., the evidence, date to millions of years ago. The only piece of evidence you seem to have is the bible. Everything else points towards evolution as being correct.

Also, I don't get how a book written 2000 years ago is undeniable proof of creationism. All you have is a book. That's it. What is the evidence you are referring to? I've got a book too, it's called "The Origin of Species". Well, the origin of species is a book, and therefore irrefutable evidence that evolution is true.

Since we have too contradicting books, both that are inherently irrefutable, what are we to do? Oh, wait. Darwin's book is based on evidence you can go and see for yourself right now, and the bible isn't.

Good point.

-------------------

Look man, I'm Christian. I believe God exists. I love Jesus and I think the message of Christianity is great. But what you are saying just doesn't make any logical sense. And before you say how I can accept one part of the bible and not the other, remember that the bible is two books, new and old. That old part sounds like a lot of lost, distracted people trying to find some meaning in a confusing and inexplicable world by writing everything off as the work of God. The new part sounds a bit more coherent, and focuses on how man is responsible for himself and has to be good and do good. I don't think it's too hard to separate the gold from the dirt here.

There's a book out about how a Flying Spaghetti Monster is the god and creator of the universe. It's got just as much evidence behind it as the bible does: absolutely nothing.