I appologize for the late reply, but I had final exams to wrap up, so the studies took away from the fun.....
In science, no one has to. But scientists have discovered that it is highly improbable for a global flood to occur, for several reasons:
I think this demonstrates how unfair you are in the way you look at things. You see the flood as being 1st impossible, and then when pushed on it, it goes from "impossible" to "highly improbable".
If you want to start thinking in terms of improbability, then you should not accept abiogenesis, or evolution at all, since they can be shown to be statistically impossible.
Its good to be consistant in your thinking, and application of principles......
They are not. Science is the study of nature, even if materialistic, and that's all it was ever meant to be and probably will be. If creationists study the supernatural, then they are not scientists.
This is a straw-man argument if there ever was one. The creation vs. evolution debate is nothing more than using scientific data to see if it supports either's claims about the past. No creationist will ever say that you can study the supernatural via the scientific method.
Interpreting scientific evidence to see if it supports the Bible is no different than seeing if it supports the idea that the big bang occured, galaxies developed, planets developed, life developed etc..... Both are only interpretations of data and nothing more.
This is why evolution is not scientific, at least no more than creationism.
"molecule-to-man" is kind of ambiguous because you've missed out all the steps in between. Specifically, one single event of speciation won't account for a molecule becoming a man, and that's certainly not what evolution suggests anyways. Instead, many, many events of speciation are happening, and simultaneously. The evolutionary relationship shows that starting from a prokaryote, evolution of eukaryotes, multicellular organisms, radial and bilateral symmetry, diploblastic body plan, triploblastic body plan, notocord and vertebrates, terrestrial organisms, bipedalism and opposable digits occurred.
Molecules-to-man is ambiguous??????? Its hardly ambigous. The evolutionary scenario claims
that this is what happened, it doesn't show
Using speciation, which involves latteral, or negative changes in the genome is not evidence that you go from a microbe to a man, and its bad science, if not intellectually dishonest to claim that it can.
If you want to make this claim, then you have to demonstrate, not speculate, that observed speciation adds new information to the biosphere, to claim it as scientific evidence of microbes-to-man evolution occuring.
Let it be clear then, that when I speak of microevolution, I'm speaking of evolution that occurs under the speciation level.
Let it be also clear, that as stated above, that genetically isolating one group of flies from another group of flies is not evidence of microbes-to-man evolution. Its evidence of flies to flies speciation, and nothing more. IMO, this is still equivocating, at least its bad science.
As far as I'm concerned, any argument that any creationist has ever brought up has been debunked. If you can come up with a proper scientific hypothesis to support your theory and design an experiment for it, the scientific community would be more than happy to consider it. Of course, I realize I'm speaking to someone who believes science is a waste of time.
I hardly believe science is a waste of time. I think the bad science that evolutionists enagage in is a waste of time, but observational science(what evolution is not) is a fantastic thing.