Evolution Trumps Creationism

[Drich]

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.

fair enough

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'm not a bible thumper. Most of the guys here initally thought I never read one. Know that I do carfully word what I have said to accuratly reflect what the bible says, and not a given denominational belief. That said know that I can pile on the verses any time you like.

I don't know why you don't want to answer that question.

Because I have been subject to all manor of tricks and double talk over the last few years from both sides.

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.

After 6000 thousand years what does 'proof' of the "intangable" (Your word) look like? What does it look like now?

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.

Again just tell me what you are looking for specifically and I will see what i can do.

---

"I dont NOT believe evolution occoured. I just don't think it happened like we think it did.. And I am kinda still the enemy as my theory still provides a possiablity of God which is the reason evolution is use so definativly as a means to dismiss God/Christianity.

No one really cares about evolution unless they are trying to seperate themselves away from God, or bring people back to him. Evolution is just the battle ground."

Actually that is simply not true. Abiogenesis is the battleground for God or not. Evolution is, through the process of natural selection, the explanation for the variety of life on this planet. Its not a God thing (except that it contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis). Any believer who is prepared to take Genesis as a story for simpler times doesn't have any problem with evolution.

Catholics, in the main, for example, don't appear to have a problem with evolution.

Your version, incorporating Genesis into the story line is clever in terms of evolution but still leaves a host of problems. You still appear to be stuck with creation in 7 days - one of which was to create, amongst other things, all the stars in the heavens. That's 10^23 stars give or take in the known universe - a far more complex task than the creation of the earth which took several days on its own.

Again the literal 7 days of Genesis is from a garden perspective. From the Garden view the stars came into view on Day 4 after God commanded it to happen.