" Shimrod, it was suggestion rather than assertion , even though there is some evidence."

OK, Pete, let's have that scrap of evidence - after all, it's you that goes on and on ... and on etc. about "observable, testable, repeatable science". And turning to that tiresome mantra - which you, no doubt, are 'parroting' from 'Creation.com' - bear in mind that God isn't observable - let alone testable, repeatedly or otherwise. For that matter, the biblical story of creation isn't open to scientific scrutiny either - we've only got ancient texts, of dubious origin, to go on (the semi-absurd convolutions of a couple of contributors above notwithstanding).