However, it does seem like many creationists think that evolution should be rejected outright because every precise detail of the mechanisms involved cannot be demonstrated, and 'proven' in triplicate - yet also claim that the creation account in their chosen religious text is undeniable fact, despite a complete lack of any detail about how life was created and came to exist in its present forms.
So why the double standards?
Sorry about the horrendous sentence in the additional details. it should be clear what I mean though!
@'Jea': I am interested though - and it's possible to learn something about people even if the replies they give demonstrate that THEY aren't interested in learning anything!
@ ummm... 'billy': Many people don't "pigeon hole" themselves using the terms you give, instead they accept that the terms are useful as appropriate broad descriptions of particular stances. As for the rest of your post (none of which is relevant to the question), have you heard the phrase "Standing on the shoulders of giants"? Thousands of years ago people didn't have the benefit of knowing what others had already learnt. Now discoveries are recorded (writing was a great invention) and shared worldwide - the collective thought processes of billions of people, with generations of discoveries to build on, means faster progress than the thoughts of a handful who had to first work out the basics. Does that not make sense?
@ 'CrownedOne': Can you give more details about how you think the Bible "goes into depth of details of his methodology"? @ 'Genegee': Are you suggesting that the Bible isn't already "very boring reading"? It's hard work to get through many chapters.
@ 'Gabby Little Angel': Why believe your science teacher? Well hopefully he provided evidence for things he told you, and demonstrated why the evidence was valid. If not he wasn't a good science teacher and you shouldn't have believed him. You shouldn't automatically believe something that you are told or read - so how was 'God's word' supported?
@ 'Chicago Bob": Yes, that's an example of asking for precise details. We CAN give an approximate order (supported with evidence). How about you? Which bit did God make first? The head? Or did he start with the torso? Thanks for illustrating my point, now do you actually have an answer to the question?
@ 'nosson': Nah, you'd just 'go around the houses' instead of giving a direct answer. ;o)