thankyou stu.
best I can see, this enlarges on my take, rather than detract from it.
steve continues to bluster ,as though that was a reasonable answer to a simple question.
shimrod charges that creationists only rely on the bible on origins. in one sense he is correct since we believe it is based on history as well as [what we believe] is revelation.
but it is consistent with science .
1- positively by reference to an intelligent designer being in our experience the best explanation of anything being made and/or exhibiting massive complexity.
2- negatively by demonstrating all the failures and problems of evolutionary ideas.eg
a- it requires some sort of naturalistic miracle without a miracle maker!
this is usually passed over as - we don't know yet - begging the question that there will be an answer to what is evidently impossible.
b- things like easily degrading materials still being present, that ought to be long gone if really MYO.

NONE OF THIS PROVES that Christian faith is true but is consistent with it,- as most scientists in our history maintained, and many still do.