Science And The Bible - Introduction

[Daystar]

Nobody will debate with you if you're using that as your definition of evolution. You'll need to call it "abiogenevolution" or something, because you're fusing two separate theories.

I am primarily interested in what science minded atheists see as a conflict to the Bible. The Bible is the way I understand things, my perspective, so to speak. Call it what you will. The distinction is noted though.

And technically I should say that
Evolution = observed fact
Theory of evolution = our explanation of those facts.

But I can see that you're probably going to disagree with evolution being factual, so I look forward to your posts

Observed fact. Now was yesterday's observed fact today's folly? Because in a basic sense what you are saying is that there is no evidence for God, but evidence for Evolution observed fact seems to be mistaken for theory, and therefore based upon explanation. Speculation.

This is why, I think, most theist see theory as, to say the least, no more substantial than theism. The Bible seems to have gotten science right - in the few vague references to things where modern science may only seem to disagree.

Why wouldn't that be a viable theory? Don't say you can't test or observe or peer review because if today's evolution is tomorrow's folly all of that stuff wouldn't be terribly impressive in the long run.

---

I just would like to know if biogenesis is proven fact.

I presume you mean abiogenesis, and the answer is no. There is some evidence to support it, but by no means is it as established as the theory of evolution.

So then it isn't a terribly important part of this discussion, is it?