Oops! sorry - (It won't let me fix it )....

No RINOs in '08 - Thompson/Hunter would be a good ticket; Thompson/Steele would be a great ticket

They say that certain fossils are of a certain age because of the strata where they are found.  The stratum is then dated based on the fossils that are located there.  If that is not circular reasoning, what the heck is?  You're right, evolution, global warming and a host of other unproven scientific theories have reached religious status because of the faith it takes to believe in them and they have reached such "conclusiveness" because of the investment of time that science and the media have had in trying to prove them right no matter how far-fetched the evidence. 

We creationists believe we are not the first population of the earth.

That is why God told Adam and Eve to replenish the earth.  An often missed passage.

Lysdexics Untie!

1)  I don't know much about amino acids, but I'll look into it and get back to you

2)  Ah the irreducible complexity.  The most ignorant argument ever perpretated in the realm of science.  Nothing more than a weak rehash of Paley's ridiculous watchmaker arugment. Life is so complicated that it must be the work of an intelligent designer (aka God) rather than the result of evolution.  Riiiight.  Deep.  Reading this sentence literally makes me feel dumber.  How exactly can you provide empirical data to support this claim?  Irreducible complexity is an ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.  Furthermore, even Behe has admitted his argument is inherently flawed.  For example, these come from the Ruling Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:

a)  "Professor Behe admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection." and that "Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work

b)  "As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID [Intelligent Design], by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. (2:15 (Miller); 5:39 (Pennock)). Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex."

c)  "...on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."

3)  Genesis is not literal.  It's a story like the rest of the Bible.  Many Christians believe in evolution by saying that Genesis' overriding point is that God made the world and everything in it.  Thus, God created the initial life forms (big bang, whatever) and evolution took it from there.  Please, if you actually believe Gensis literally you need serious help.  To believe Genesis literally, would mean that men and dinosaurs roamed the earth together.  Ha!