re shimrods post after mine....the difference is, is that though I am getting my arguments from creation sites, I am not saying that creation is true because they say so, but I am using specific arguments gleaned from them......and I should add, just the ones that are less technical. what most of you do is claim that because most scientists hold[ to some version] of evolutionism that this is of itself evidence. it is of course ludicrous to think the status quo must be always right, as obviously it has been wrong frequently through history. and while you all will agree with that, the religious fervour displayed against creationists, imo, is evidence that evolutionism is more a philosophical mindset than it is science.
but, you cry. the western world will go to pot if creation is given even the slightest voice. considering you are scientists, that is unfounded and irrelevant. it is true or false, regardless of whatever fanciful dreads you might conjecture !. infact, it is true or false even if you were justified in your conjectures as to consequences of creation belief.
and yes, I do take the bible as authoritive , but in case you have not noticed, when debating non believers [in God that is !] I have used specific non biblical arguments.
bill, not sure that soft tissue in old bones is that rare anymore, but we should not expect to always find it. it is a bonus that it lasted thousands of years, that it might survive myo is stretching credibility except to those committed to, and" having a vested interest" in the evolutionary story. your claim that it now makes sense is only an assertion unless you can show how it could defy what operational science was not expecting.