Evolution Trumps Creationism

[Drich]

[
I've outlined everything here in my orginal thread. all of you question have been answered in the OP
http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.html

I read it, and it's just bizarre. It doesn't answer any of my above questions at all.

I'm an evolutionary biologist by trade, and since this is actually kind of a new spin on creationism for me, I want to better understand your idea (the OP didn't do much for me, mostly because I'm totally uninterested in what the bible says, so to be fair I probably did lose your point somewhere in all the scriptural talk).

I'd love it if you could put it more succinctly, without the biblical proofs, since I don't care about those. Since it appears you are trying to reconcile religion with science, proper scientific evolutionary language would be appreciated- you know, like a real scientific proposal.

The opening line in my thread summerizes the actual theory completely.

There is no time line between the end of the seven days of creation, and the Fall of man. (Basically nothing says how much time elapsed between Genesis 2 and 3.) which will allow you to potentially fit any version of evolution you want in that space.

The Genesis account focouses on a centeralized Garden perspective. The Garden was a sancuary built for Adam and eve to reflect the 'evolved world' at the time of the fall so there was no harsh transition..

Now, that said if you are indeed a evolutionary biologist by trade then you should be well aware that the onis in on you to take an intrest in the data provided, if you want to be apart of this conversation. Meaning your going to have to suck it up and interperate the data provided in the formate provided (Bible verses and all.) No free rides here. For if you start to spout evolutionary specific terms, then I am required to ask you a question, or look the terms up myself, IF I want to be apart of the conversation. Same goes for you sport. Ask a question or bow out and let someone else speak.

---

Don't be so fast to dismiss the possibility, Billy.

At least he gave me a "thesis" to analyze. GC and Johnny Five just give empty statements, and Waldorf? Well, he's to stubborn to understand his own words.

What minnie is trying to tell you is that if you hold tightly to the idea that I am an idiot, despite any evidence to the contary then you can simply move through my posts and dismiss what ever does not tickle your fancy. That way you can dismiss whole threads with out any proof or research. In otherwords it is a way to perserve one's 'faith' without haveing to stand up to the scrutiny of providing proof when I ask you to back your claim.