Evolution/creation 2

[Reforged]

I'm not talking evolution. I am talking about how creationism assimilates evolution in it's trivial entirety.

The Bible never mentions anything remotely similar to evolution and The Bible is essentially where your brand of creationism originates from.

the account in Genesis only tells the account in detail from the garden perspective. the bible is silent as to what happens outside of the garden. i have only point to the fact that it is plausable, because nothing the bible says contradicts the evolutionary account of orgins.

I hardly think that "account" could be accused of being detailed.
I think I've discovered the problem. You're under the false impression that in order for something to be plausible it must not contradict with the Bible. Putting aside The Bible regularly contradicts itself, you are incorrect in this. Plausibility relies on evidence and you have none.

You are attempting to make creationism more plausible than it obviously is by bastardising it with your own half-baked understanding of evolution.

that is the beautiful thing here. You can freely take my account of evolution out of the picture and put in whatever you wish with whatever time lines and names that tickel your fancy. the linch pin here is not me nor my level of education. It's the fact that there is no time line between creation and the fall.

Your account of evolution isn't an account of evolution. You never go into the specifics of evolution and why it is scientifically entwined with creationism. You never justify creationism as a plausible theory. You simply combine the two while quoting Bible verses with very little explanation aside from; "Well according to the Bible theres no reason evolution couldn't have occurred so I guess both evolution and creationism are both true. :-)"
From this line of reasoning you have spun an entirely hypthoetical situation based on assumptions and "what ifs" with not so much as a shred of evidence or fact behind it. If we went by the Bible to discern what is then many essential scientific discoveries would remain undiscovered.
So yes, it is your level of education that is called into question here. I am questioning it based on the fact you think this to be an acceptable fashion to present an arguement. You seem to have very little knowledge at your disposal.

The fact remains that there is no evidence for creationism but plenty for evolution and incase it hasn't already become self-evident we are not in the business of mixing fact with fairytale.
Next time you attempt this, which I would advise against, would you perhaps research evolution beforehand so your ignorance isn't so readily apparent. Not only do you present no actual evidence creationism is anything more than a pipe dream put onto paper but you don't even present an argument that draws on any knowledge of what you are attempting to combine creationism with.
The idea that someone would even attempt such a thing without a basic understanding of natural selection is frankly offensive to the intellect of all who have bared witness to your rather pale imitation of a hypothesis.

Please, don't embarrass yourself further.
Go away and learn something about evolution before bringing it up again.

you Really do not know what is going on here do you? or are you simply hoping and praying the 'standard' creation closing arguement will cover your loss for words.

I'd wager I know a damn site more than you do in-general.
May I also point out that the laughter emoticon is not a replacement for a sound retort?
I say this because you use it so often in all of your arguments for that specific purpose that I felt someone should really point that out.
I've explained why your meek hybrid of creationism and evolution is not acceptable as a legitimate theory, if this is your only retort then I suppose we shall have to be content that you were simply not capable of a better one.
I wish I could say I was surprised.