It's so tempting to jump back into this but I think I will just watch.

I won't, but I don't have anything to add to my side, the other side, or even the side that just jumps in and sparks extra debate from time to time. Also I need to be getting to school in a few minutes, so I can't be clicking all kinds of links and responding to them. Later, though, sure.

Which doesn't mean that the whole Bible is accurate, just that some parts of it are.

P.S.

lol, AiG I'll try to make a substantial post here about AiG if I can get together the right sources and get an internet connection tonight when I'm at my grandparent's house in Florida.

That is an interesting article AJ. I agree with his methods of argumentation, but I don't think that his examples would work that easily in real life. I think most people would stick to their guns, regardless, just as we are going to pretty much stick to ours. Even if you crush someones fallacies, they usually just start making stuff up, and then get confused, or retreat to a middle ground.

The problem is that most arguments toward believing in God aren't solid at all. For instance, one site said that it must have been a huge coincidence that our planet has just the right conditions for survival of life, to which I say that those favorable conditions are why life is here and not on another planet. The universe is f***ing huge. No denying that. maybe infinite, if that's possible. Once or twice there will be a planet that can support life. Whether or not it does, though, depends on circumstance.

I do agree with you that most arguments for creationism are ill founded. I find it annoying that, so far, I haven't really heard many profound arguments on either side. I find it even more annoying that a lot of people just come up with junk and try to reuse material that has been tried and blown apart again and again.

If there was anything definite we wouldn't be at such a standstill.

I agree with the auther of that blog.

There is no proof. The bible was written by someone like today we would write a story. Creation of man, animals, is all unknown. People believe differnt things and they are allowed to have their opinions.

Uhh...I think you misunderstood the message of the blog. It was definitely not that there's no proof.

Pretty much all the article seems to be about is a Creationist whining that his interpretation of his holy book is not accepted over reality. The article also seems to try to push the false dichotomy between Evolution and Christianity. If the arguments in Creationism have any validity they should be able to exclude their book from the discussion.

Here's some problematic statements I found in the AiG Statement of Faith.

Probably the worst one though is the following.
Saying that your interpretation can never be contradicted by evidence from any field is one of the most intellectually barren positions I can imagine.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

One a side note I find the Creation Museum supported by AiG to be a despicable institution.