Problem with this whole debate is that it is about competing belief systems about origins.
One side falsely tries to claim that this is about faith v science whereas in actual fact it is about faith v faith.
It actually gets tiring as it is the usual suspects who you constantly have to repeat the same answers to.
Some believe they are rearranged pond scum and that their existence is ultimately meaningless, yet they seem to spend an inordinate amount of time debating about an entity they do not believe exists. Go figure.
Others seem to have their own novel ideas about how to interpret scripture and how it interacts with science.
Admittedly, we are limited in our understanding about God other than what God has chosen to reveal to us, and as the scriptures say the heavens declare the glory of God.
Given that God has created, it is not surprising that by denying God, you have to believe in something so ridiculous, that you would never hold to such an absurd position had it not been for a priori commitment to naturalism.
To believe in the naturalist explanation one has to believe something as incredibly complex as a self replicating organism miraculously came into existence by itself, and then even more miraculously by random genetic copying mistakes, this single celled organism change into the myriad of life forms on this planet.
I do not have enough faith to be an Athiest, but obviously many here do.
