Intelligent Design

[Flying Crane]

If you want to put your faith in men and accept evolution, that is your choice. I don't have a problem with it at all. The problem is with the arrogance and self-righteousness of people who come here and claim that they are smarter and better than others because they choose to place thier faith in an un-supportable theory rather than in God.

There is nothing wrong with believing in God at the same time as believing in science and evolution. You can accept that evolution is true, and that God created the universe and the world and uses evolution as his mechanism for change. It even makes sense, that God would use a mechanism that humans could observe and measure and understand.

But if you do believe in God, this is a matter of faith. God's existence cannot be observed, measured, proven or disproven.

But evolution, as a mechanism that creates change in the world, can be. That is science, and science is different from faith. Science seeks to observe and measure and understand the world around us. That is what it is for.

Faith is used to try and understand that which cannot (at least yet) be described by science. But faith, the belief in God or any other higher being, has absolutely no place in a science class. Faith is not science, and cannot be passed off as such, and has absolutely no place being taught to school children in a science class.

Religious based schools can and do teach religious ideology in their curriculum. That is their right to do and I have no argument with that. But it is important to understand where faith ends and science begins. But this does not mean that faith and science are incompatible, and a belief in one necessitates a rejection of the other.

 

[michaeledward]

No, that is mainly due to better nutrition...

But, taller men are more attractive to women.
Men and Women procreate.
The genes that make men tall are passed on.
And women continue to find taller men more attractive.


In a dozen generations, we may find that, nutrition aside, the species is getting taller.

 

[heretic888]

Well said, Flying Crane. In particular. . .

There is nothing wrong with believing in God at the same time as believing in science and evolution. You can accept that evolution is true, and that God created the universe and the world and uses evolution as his mechanism for change. It even makes sense, that God would use a mechanism that humans could observe and measure and understand.

It should be pointed out that this theistic evolution is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church and, therefore by extension, the largest body of Christians in the world today.

Laterz.

 

[Flying Crane]

Well said, Flying Crane. In particular. . .



It should be pointed out that this theistic evolution is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church and, therefore by extension, the largest body of Christians in the world today.

Laterz.

Yeah, but make sure you read the rest of what I said. It isn't a blank check. It comes with limitations and needs to be recognized as the act of faith that it is. It needs to be recognized that it has nothing to do with science.

 

[pstarr]

Heretic-

Please re-read Adept's remark regarding scientists who are skeptical about the validity of evolution. His remark was "not among credible scientists."
That was clear enough for me.

Now, microevolution and macroevolution are two different concepts altogether. One does not lead into the other as you would like for us to believe.

You state the there is "ample evidence" to support the theory of macroevolution. If you would, please share some of that with us so that your discoveries might be shared with the scientific community and this entire arguement be put to rest.

You cannot rely on the fossil record as several members have tries to insist that we do in earlier posts - the gaping holes in the fossil record are the reason why so many scientists (who come from a variety of religious affiliations, by the way) have turned their backs on it. So your "ample evidence" will have to come from some other source.

My rejection of gradualism is in line with the feelings and criticisms of numerous scientists - even though it may not be in line with your opinions on the subject. "Gradualism", as you call it, IS, in fact, necessary if we are to accept macroevolution as being valid.

As for "bad science" and "good science" having to do with one's religious coloring, nothing could be further from the truth. I suspect that if I were Buddhist or Hindu, I wouldn't be hearing the same arguements from you since you seem to prefer focusing your attention on subjects that have anything to do with Christianity.

Are you familiar with what we were taught is the "scientific method" in high school? If so, can you please explain how it has been successfully applied to the issue of macroevolution? Or offer up any of your so-called "ample evidence?" Because if you have any, you should see if you can get it published in a scientific journal. You'd be famous!

 

[heretic888]

Now, microevolution and macroevolution are two different concepts altogether. One does not lead into the other as you would like for us to believe.

Says you.

Your argument just confirms in your case what is so common among those that criticize or otherwise attempt to attack evolutionary theory. Namely, that they are arguing from ignorance. What is so glaringly apparent to those of us who know a thing or two about the natural sciences is that the individuals in question just plain do not understand what the theory of evolution entails.

The case in point here is the illusory dichotomy between "micro" and "macro" evolution. So-called "macro" evolution is what happens when enough "micro" evolutions accumulate in a population to genetically differentiate them from their parent species (creating either a new species or a sub-species). Drawing a difference between these two phenomena would be like arguing there is a difference between adding single-digit numbers and adding double-digit numbers. Well, sure, but it's a difference of size. It's not a difference of kind.

Essentially, the creationists are saying that 1+1=2 is a real scientific phenomena that has been proven, but 10+10=20 is dogmatic speculation that is completely different. Of course, those in the know (whether the mathematician or the biologist) find such arguments laughably absurd.

You state the there is "ample evidence" to support the theory of macroevolution. If you would, please share some of that with us so that your discoveries might be shared with the scientific community and this entire arguement be put to rest.

The evidence is well-known and well-acknowledged among the scientific community, and claiming otherwise does not change this. The only circles that are having this "argument" are those outside of science.\

Please reference my earlier point that no article in support of creationism or intelligent design has yet to be published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. The "argument" that you propose only takes place through the medium of personal websites, private thinktanks, and populist books.

None of that is science. At best, its pop-science. It'd be like claiming what Dr. Phil is doing is "real psychology". Any psychology student would laugh in your face at such claims, as would any biology student when it comes to these criticisms of evolutionary theory.

However, to recap, the relevant lines of evidence are genetic, morphological, geographical, and paleontological.

You cannot rely on the fossil record as several members have tries to insist that we do in earlier posts - the gaping holes in the fossil record are the reason why so many scientists (who come from a variety of religious affiliations, by the way) have turned their backs on it. So your "ample evidence" will have to come from some other source.

It should be pointed out that your "so many" scientists make up less than 1% of the relevant field in question and have yet to publish their relevant findings in peer-reviewed academic journals. That puts them in the same boat as the "flat earthers".

In any event, this thumbing of one's nose at the fossil record is pretty absurd. That there are some holes here and there does not negate the obvious trends that exist within said record. Furthermore, these so-called "missing links" are only problematic, as before, if one accepts universal gradualism. Most biologists do not.

My rejection of gradualism is in line with the feelings and criticisms of numerous scientists - even though it may not be in line with your opinions on the subject. "Gradualism", as you call it, IS, in fact, necessary if we are to accept macroevolution as being valid.

The very fact that you believe gradualism is necessary for macroevolution demonstrates quite clearly you have no clue what you're talking about.

Imagine my surprise.

As for "bad science" and "good science" having to do with one's religious coloring, nothing could be further from the truth. I suspect that if I were Buddhist or Hindu, I wouldn't be hearing the same arguements from you since you seem to prefer focusing your attention on subjects that have anything to do with Christianity.

And yet, all of the proponents of "intelligent design" have published works extremely sympathetic to religious fundamentalism and not one of them has published anything in a peer-reviewed academic journal.

Also, what you are arguing for is not "Christianity", it is an archaic and parochial vestige of Christianity that makes up a rather vocal minority in this country. Most Christians have no problem reconciling their religious beliefs with scientific findings.

Are you familiar with what we were taught is the "scientific method" in high school? If so, can you please explain how it has been successfully applied to the issue of macroevolution? Or offer up any of your so-called "ample evidence?" Because if you have any, you should see if you can get it published in a scientific journal. You'd be famous!

No, I wouldn't. I'd just be regurgitating what Darwin and Wallace said over 150 years ago (well, except for the genetic stuff). The evidence is there, you just don't want to see it.

Laterz.

 

[pstarr]

Au contraire - those of us who really do know something about the subject are very much aware of the difference between micro and macro evolution. It happens to fit into your aruguement which is why you insist on using it. There's no "illusory dichotomy" involved at all. These are two very different theories.

As for the skeptics being in circles "outside of science"...gosh, I didn't know that representatives from the Smithsonian, the director of the center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, and other such men were considered to be "outside of science."

Once again, your colors are showing. I have not indicated or asked that creationism be supported by anyone - I have never indicated that any scientific journals have published anything in regards to the subject. Like I said, if I was anything but a Christian I doubt you'd even bother to respond.

I'm curious to know how you arrived at the figure of 1% regarding the number of scientists who disagree with the theory of evolution...?

As for thumbing noses at the fossil record being absurd, perhaps you should speak to the scientists who do just that. You seem to know more about the subject than they do...The gaps in the fossil record are the problem!

You assume that I am arguing for creationism. I haven't said anything to that effect. I am arguing for good science. And you still didn't answer my question about the "scientific method."...or provide any of your "ample evidence."

Come on...show me.

 

[KOROHO]

I got a nice note in my reputation from Elder/Cuffee, further demonstrating how pathetic he is.

Again, rather than offer up evidence to support his argument, he states that a "business degree" makes me "uneducated".

This is the what happens when you argue on the internet with morons - which by they way is what he called me.

This is the arrogance of these people. They tell you to believe something - merely because they do not because there is evidence. And if you are an independent thinker instead of koolaid drinker - they say your just not educated.

Dude, please explain how I earned a degree without an education? Or atleast try. I know you have a difficult time with things like that.

 

[pstarr]

Remember what Mark Twain said:

"Never let schooling get in the way of your education."
​

Just let it go...​

 

[heretic888]

Au contraire - those of us who really do know something about the subject are very much aware of the difference between micro and macro evolution. It happens to fit into your aruguement which is why you insist on using it. There's no "illusory dichotomy" involved at all. These are two very different theories.

You repeatedly claim this but have yet to demonstrate how this is so.

Orthodox evolutionary theory argues that genetic adaptations emerge in a given population via random variation and natural selection ("micro" evolution) and that, over time, these adaptations accumulate to the point where they genetically differentiate the population from the parent species ("macro" evolution).

So, please explain to me how these two ideas are different, other than size effect. Simply claiming they are different does not make it so.

As for the skeptics being in circles "outside of science"...gosh, I didn't know that representatives from the Smithsonian, the director of the center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, and other such men were considered to be "outside of science."

Please re-read my statements. I never claimed these men were outside of science, I claimed that the arguments are outside of science.

And by that I mean the arguments of these gentlemen are not published in peer-reviewed academic periodicals devoted to such sciences. Lots of noted scientists hold lots of crazy opinions (everything from "the Holocaust never happened" to "women can't do math and science"), but that doesn't mean they could successfully argue for their position in a peer-reviewed academic setting.

Simply saying "Dr. X says Y" when discussing science is pretty meaningless if Dr. X won't publish his findings in a peer-reviewed journal.

Once again, your colors are showing. I have not indicated or asked that creationism be supported by anyone - I have never indicated that any scientific journals have published anything in regards to the subject.

Which was my point exactly. No scientific evidence has been advanced for these individuals' claim because they have not been subjected to peer review.

I'm curious to know how you arrived at the figure of 1% regarding the number of scientists who disagree with the theory of evolution...?

The pertinent "list" in question that is floating somewhere out there on the web consists of no more than a few hundred scientists. This is in comparison to the thousands upon thousands of scientists that make up the field, none of whom have voiced any dissent concerning evolutionary theory (outside of disagreements on the details).

As for thumbing noses at the fossil record being absurd, perhaps you should speak to the scientists who do just that. You seem to know more about the subject than they do...The gaps in the fossil record are the problem!

In other words, you're not going to address my arguments and just resort to Appeals To Authority. Understood.

You assume that I am arguing for creationism. I haven't said anything to that effect. I am arguing for good science.

Not to be rude, but you don't know what good science is.

That you still haven't got the point about peer review after several posts is proof enough of that. . .

And you still didn't answer my question about the "scientific method."...or provide any of your "ample evidence."

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey
Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature
Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics
Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution

Although, all of this is really beside the point because, as I said before, the only circles through which this "debate" is argued is outside of science. It is rather absurd to argue that populist books that have not been scrutinized by peer review are doing "good science", whereas the peer-reviewed academic journals are just awash in dogmatic "bad science".

It should be pointed out that in such discussions, "good science" is opertationally defined as "scientific conclusions (not methods) that the commentator agrees with", whereas "ample evidence" is operationally defined as "evidence that the commentator agrees with". Where I'm from, we call that a biased sampling, something that generally gets corrected in peer review.

Laterz.

 

[elder999]

I got a nice note in my reputation from Elder/Cuffee, further demonstrating how pathetic he is.

Again, rather than offer up evidence to support his argument, he states that a "business degree" makes me "uneducated".
.

Huh?

I'll admit that I don't see how a business degree makes you at all qualified to argue about biology-just as none of my degrees-though at least science degrees-do either.

I'll even admit right here that my feelings towards you-and your arguments-are pretty much the same as yours are towards mine,but, if I wanted to call you anything, I'd go ahead and do it right here;it's not really necessary, though,as you're doing a super-fine job of demonstrating just where you live-intellectually speaking-on your own.

As for my arguments, I didn't really have any, did I? I only pointed out that the prevalent scientific thinking by people in the fields in question points towards evolution, and how intelligent design simply isn't a "theory" in any sense of the word but the most simplistic. In fact, if you review all my posts on the topic carefully, you'll find that I, along with quite a few other scientists, happen to believe in a Creator; I just don't think, for scientific and philosophical/metaphysical reasons, that it's science's place yet to prove or disprove his existence, or to even find evidence of a designer in all of this-in fact, many of the examples of "design" you used-in terms of the human body, for example-are evidence of evolution.

Lastly, Jim, you can certainly believe what you want to believe. It doesn't matter to me at all, but when you present your ideas on a public forum such as this, well, they're going to be disagreed with by more than a few people, including me-especially when they're as obviously weak and biased as yours are.

 

[pstarr]

Posted by Heretic-
"You repeatedly claim this but have yet to demonstrate how this is so.

Orthodox evolutionary theory argues that genetic adaptations emerge in a given population via random variation and natural selection ("micro" evolution) and that, over time, these adaptations accumulate to the point where they genetically differentiate the population from the parent species ("macro" evolution).

So, please explain to me how these two ideas are different, other than size effect. Simply claiming they are different does not make it so."

Okay..."The facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution."
-R.H. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution

"Microevolution involves mainly changes within ptentially continuous populations and there is little doubt that its materials are those revealed by genetic experimentation. Macroevolution involves the rise and divergence of discontinuous groups and it is still debatable whether it differs in kind or only in degree from microevolution. If the two proved to be basically different, the innumerable studies of microevolution would become relatively unimportant and would have minor value in the study of evolution as a whole."
-G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution

"Large evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any." (Italics are mine)
-R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection

You asked about peer-reviewed material. Here you go:

"We've got to have some ancestors. We'll pick those. Why? Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates. That's by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating."
Gereth Nelson, Wall Street Journal Dec.9, 1986.


"As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record."
T. Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record", New Scientist, 108, pg 66, 1985


"Well represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range, or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone), that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happen to most species."
S. J. Gould, "Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness", Natural History, Dec. 1988, p 14.

"Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for evolution. The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution)."
S. J. Gould, "Cordelia's dilema, Natural History, Feb. 1993, p 15.

"If it could be shown that this fact [gaps between widely distinct groups] had always existed, the fact would be fatal to the doctrine of evolution."
T. H. Huxley, Three Lectures on Evolution

S. J. Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters" Natural History , pp 22, 24, 1977.
"Rather than supporting evolution, the breaks in the known fossil record support the creation of major groups with the possibility of some limited variation within each group."

D. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record", Proceedings of the Geological Association 87 (1976): 133.
"But I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. ... Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition."

E. White, "Presidential Address: A Little on Lungfishes," Proceedings of the Linnean Society 177 (1966), pg 8.
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil records has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."

How's that for starters?

I did wonder where you came up with your figure of 1% (regarding the number of world-class scientists who are skeptical or in complete denial of macroevolution) and it is apparent that you pulled it out of thin air.

You want to sound as though you have some idea of what you're trying to argue. You don't.

 

[pstarr]

Oops- looks like I don't know much about my font here... Dog jumped on my lap...

 

[pstarr]

This is also an interesting take-

Evolution Goes Fishing AgainCulture War Brian Cherry
May 26, 2006A good argument can be made that society today is dedicated to showing things as they do not appear to be. Resumes, Clinton memoirs, the “Push Up” bra, etc are all monuments to the distortion of information. Whether the misrepresentations are in the form of a president trying to pass oral sex off as just an enthusiastic “Howdy Do” from a star struck intern or somebody claiming on their resume that they invented the internet, none of them have the down home charm of the typical fish story.
Most fish stories have something to do with the size of the fish, but when an evolutionist tells this sort of tale, the fish is somehow a distant ancestor of the human race.

 

[heretic888]

Okay..."The facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution."
-R.H. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution

"Microevolution involves mainly changes within ptentially continuous populations and there is little doubt that its materials are those revealed by genetic experimentation. Macroevolution involves the rise and divergence of discontinuous groups and it is still debatable whether it differs in kind or only in degree from microevolution. If the two proved to be basically different, the innumerable studies of microevolution would become relatively unimportant and would have minor value in the study of evolution as a whole."
-G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution

"Large evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any." (Italics are mine)
-R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection

In other words, instead of providing actual arguments for your position, you're going to lob a few quotations taken horridly out of context. Gotchah.

Still waiting for an actual argument.

You asked about peer-reviewed material. Here you go:

"We've got to have some ancestors. We'll pick those. Why? Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates. That's by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating."
Gereth Nelson, Wall Street Journal Dec.9, 1986.


"As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record."
T. Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record", New Scientist, 108, pg 66, 1985


"Well represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range, or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone), that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happen to most species."
S. J. Gould, "Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness", Natural History, Dec. 1988, p 14.

"Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for evolution. The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution)."
S. J. Gould, "Cordelia's dilema, Natural History, Feb. 1993, p 15.

"If it could be shown that this fact [gaps between widely distinct groups] had always existed, the fact would be fatal to the doctrine of evolution."
T. H. Huxley, Three Lectures on Evolution

S. J. Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters" Natural History , pp 22, 24, 1977.
"Rather than supporting evolution, the breaks in the known fossil record support the creation of major groups with the possibility of some limited variation within each group."

D. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record", Proceedings of the Geological Association 87 (1976): 133.
"But I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. ... Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition."

E. White, "Presidential Address: A Little on Lungfishes," Proceedings of the Linnean Society 177 (1966), pg 8.
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil records has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."

How's that for starters?

Pretty pitiful, actually.

Not only are most (if not all) of the aformentioned authors proponents of evolutionary theory (I mean, Stephen Jay Gould??), but absolutely none of the sources you cited come from peer-reviewed academic journals.

In fact, pretty much everything you have cited thus far lends support to punctuated equilibrium, which does not contradict evolution.

I did wonder where you came up with your figure of 1% (regarding the number of world-class scientists who are skeptical or in complete denial of macroevolution) and it is apparent that you pulled it out of thin air.

If that's what makes you feel better, sure.

Of course, I'm not the one confusing "denial of macroevolution" with "questioning how macroevolution actually happens".

You want to sound as though you have some idea of what you're trying to argue. You don't.

Kettle? Pot? Black??

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

The methods used to teach this to our children is not dissimilar to the methods used to teach young kids in Nazi Germany that Jews were not human. We all know how well that turned out

Well, that just says it all, doesn't it??

Still waiting on articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals that are in support of intelligent design or creationism. Still waiting. . .

 

[pstarr]

I would have thought that the cited material would have satisfied your "peer-reviewed journals" hunger. Do you have any specific journals in mind? If so, I'll make some phone calls and see what I can do...

It would seem that no matter what material is presented to you, no matter that it is written by well-respected authorities in the field, it isn't going to be good enough...

By the way- the quotations weren't taken out of context.

I suppose that material which has been presented in textbooks and other such publications won't be authoritative enough for someone of your stature...unfortunate. There's a great deal of it.

 

[pstarr]

Oops- almost missed your last point.

As I have stated previously in this thread - so write it down this time - I'm not arguing for creationism. I'm arguing against macroevolution. There's a difference.

You are assuming (and we all know what that does) that because I'm Christian, I'm arguing for creationism. Let's pretend I'm a Tibetan Buddhist or something...

 

[heretic888]

I would have thought that the cited material would have satisfied your "peer-reviewed journals" hunger. Do you have any specific journals in mind? If so, I'll make some phone calls and see what I can do...

It would seem that no matter what material is presented to you, no matter that it is written by well-respected authorities in the field, it isn't going to be good enough...

By the way- the quotations weren't taken out of context.

I suppose that material which has been presented in textbooks and other such publications won't be authoritative enough for someone of your stature...unfortunate. There's a great deal of it.

Actually, pstarr, it's quite simple.

It's becoming increasingly obvious you don't know what peer-reviewed academic periodicals are nor do you seem to understand what makes up good science. Good science doesn't rest on Appeals To Authority. Nothing is authoritative in science. Period.

I still find all this gibberish to be rather amusing in nature. "Bad science" is what is being presented in academic journals, but "good science" is what is discussed in websites and populist books. Creationists have their own "journals", of course, but they have the kind of "science" where everybody agrees with everybody else and the conclusions are foregone.

That all of this is being interpolated with some kooky conspiracy theory "cult of evolution" nonsense is just the icing on the cake, in my opinion.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

As I have stated previously in this thread - so write it down this time - I'm not arguing for creationism. I'm arguing against macroevolution. There's a difference.

Just as there's a difference between denying macroevolution and simply questioning how it takes place.

Funny, that.

You are assuming (and we all know what that does) that because I'm Christian, I'm arguing for creationism. Let's pretend I'm a Tibetan Buddhist or something...

Wouldn't make a difference. Religious mythology is religious mythology. It ain't science.

Laterz.