Matt,

I submit to you that I have a very real understanding of the issues involved. You just want so badly to be right that you reserve all validity for your own view. I love you anyway.

The thing about the scientific method that doesnt really apply to darwinist evolution is that you cant look at any number of bones, or similarly looking animals..and say "mm..they seem to be alike..they must be related" and thats suppose to fly without any quantitative data or definitive invariables to support it.

If this is science, then its qualitative..as opposed to quantitative..which I buy more.

qualitative science is at best educated guessing.. which is why darwin's evolution is a theory, and shall remain so unless we develop definitive verification for it's claims.. since it involves so much prehistory, time travel (not currently possible) would be the only definitive means of proving it into law.

Until it becomes law, this particular theory that I wouldnt buy with my last dollar, shall remain on my list of things to question.

I'm sorry if your encyclopedia britannica says what it says, Matt.. but some of us dont readily believe anything and everything.. if so, you'd believe God was at least possible.

If you percieve it as ignorance that I (and lots of others) dont accept a theory as solid fact yet, I'm sorry you feel that way.