Well damn. That was a well crafted reply good sir. I salute you for it. Without getting into the Theory of Evolution and it's scientific facts, which I'm quite sure I am no expert on in any event, I will allow one admission - it doesn't know everything it needs to, to adequately explain every facet of every living creature. How can it? Science as we know it is as advanced as we, as a species, are capable of understanding it, meaning that there will always be assumptions and calculated, if not observable conclusions. This will leave areas for argument or debate. And from what I've seen of Britton, these will be the areas he won't attempt to justify, because he can't. Religion, on the other hand, has its flaws also. Several times (at least twice) your quoted passage claims [i]"The Bible says....."[/i] followed by [i]"That's a fact"[/i]. The justification, in every instance, is not a source from within the Bible, but a lack of scientific evidence to prove the opposing scientific opinion. To clarify, let's assume that we are all deaf. To continue the narrative, the Bible says duck quacks don't echo, and having no evidence to the contrary, religious folks claim it's truth. Yet science has no proof as we can't hear it. We can calculate, theorise, and debate, but not prove. On the other hand, the religious folks are claiming the right of it, because an unverified source says so.... My point, to cut a long story short, is that it's the same end result, from two differing viewpoints, and likely the two will never agree till either the Bible gets an update with a bibliography stating the sources of its facts, or science advances to the point where we can claim evolution is exactly as we had observed it to be. I myself will wait for science. I sort of enjoy the way science works. Seems to me you enjoy the way the Bible works, and that's cool with me. This debate, on the other hand, could go on for a long time with little or no resolution. :) [spoiler]And I find myself apologising again. The inference of "troll post" wasn't so much because I believe you to be a troll, which I don't, but more because this issue often raises contention. Seeing the oft repeated "facts? None." replies, it can seem that you became unintentionally troll-like. I can see from your reply, however that I was a little presumptuous, and apologise for the comment. :)[/spoiler]