Evolution Trumps Creationism

[Zazzy]

How about, if i start down an Ad hoc road you simply identify it proclaim a victory and move on,

Why would I do that? If someone thinks about their original position and refines it due to a good criticism, that's a good thing. In science, you get to backtrack without getting bashed (at least, if you do the backtracking before you publish). But we are batting around an idea here, so there's no need for the kind of behavior you are describing.

otherwise let us proceed without the verbal contract that youre requiring that I make, that subjects my faith to your interpertations of what is or is not a scientific discussion.

I'm simply asking you if you're going to pull out the Bible down the road, or if we can stick to scientific observation. I don't know why you don't want to answer that question.
There's no debate as to what constitutes a scientific discussion: a proposal about the natural world understood by all parties, followed by evidence (experimental or observational) to back that proposal, and then a discussion of the merits of that evidence, and how well it supports the proposal. Get far enough to where your proposal is testable, and it's a hypothesis.

This is as close to a confirmation as your going to get so either poop or get off the pot.

You made a proposal. I understand it. Now you provide some scientific evidence to back it up. Again, if you don't want to have this conversation, all you have to do is say so. You don't have to keep up this hostility.

---

Ah! I get it on rereading that last few posts. You thought I was saying I wasn't interested in YOU making ad hoc arguments. I was saying the opposite- I'm not interested in accusing you of making ad hoc arguments, because holding someone to an initial position does not lead to fruitful discussion in science. I was unclear in my wording.