Don't think you both are out of the water so to speak. I'll get back to talking about the flood once I've had a chance to reply to other issues here.

Regarding the "evolutionist quotes" Bex. Do you know who these people are, and the contexts from which these quotes were taken?

This is something called quote mining and some people spend a long time doing this is an attempt to "prove" that evolutionists don't even believe what they are saying. On the very face of it this is just plain silly. Many of these are prominent scientists who very clearly accept evolution as fact. Why would they then go around saying that it isn't true? Stephen Jay Gould is one who is continually quoted out of context by creationists and he has expressed his frustration about this a number of times.

It's like the example I gave of cosmology here. You might like it on the face of things. It has a scientific ring. It seems to be evidence for what you believe. But if you actually check out the details you find errors. Often you find that the "evolutionist" is criticising an aspect of the way evolution works, rather than the theory itself. Often you will find that it is a scientist saying that we haven't gathered a lot of evidence yet; these quotes tend to be outdated because since they were said there has indeed been more evidence found. Look at the ones you gave here. 1982. 1972 -- as old as I am for goodness sake. Other times you'll find that a few sentences have been lifted out of a large paragraph, and in the process the context has been totally changed. What sort of a practice is this by people whose religion tells them to be honest?

You can look here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html for more details about how scientists are quote mined. It's another example of the ping-pong I keep talking about. And most people understand that just because someone says something is so, does not necessarily make it so anyway. You look at the facts and the evidence.

Where do I draw the line between ape and human? Why does there need to be a line? It's a progression. I'm not ashamed to own anything as an ancestor, why should I be? Evolution is a remarkable process and every organism is unique and fascinating. You are again making claims here without providing evidence for them. Who says that the hominids you listed were variants of modern humans? Which creationist is this now, and how do you know they know what they are talking about? Do you ever question what they are telling you Bex? They are not experts in these subjects, they are "interpreting" for you. Please be sure, when you list claims like this, to provide some kind of a link so that I can see for myself what the basis for them is, and then I can address that.