Evolution, Science, and God

[Castor Muscular]

So you didn't OBSERVE the creation act..... nor take part in it... SO...... you have totally missed out on the core "Scientific" principle of "OBSERVATION". ALSO...

Sounds like someone here doesn't understand what the scientific requirement "observation" actually means.  :

Observation in science is the observation of experimental data. There is *no* requirement in science that you have to be present to witness an event, in order to make valid scientific deductions about the event. That's obvious nonsense that most people would realize, if they would slow down and think about it for a moment. 

Being a first-hand witness *cannot* be a requirement of science; because if it were, then forensic investigation (like at a murder scene) could never be done.  How do you investigate a murder scene, if there are no first-hand witnesses?  If someone breaks into your house and there are no witnesses, does that mean you cannot draw any conclusions from the evidence (broken window, muddy footprints, china cabinet broken, etc.)?

You fundamentally misunderstand what "scientific observation" means.

What it actually means is that the observational data that you record about the event - for example, the number of drops of blood on the floor, the blood type of the victim, etc. must be reproducible.  Other people must be able to run the same tests on the evidence, and arrive at the same answers.  There is actually a formalized six-step method (called the Scientific Method) that uses scientific observation. 

In the field of biology, geology, etc. there are often no first-hand witnesses to events.  For example, there are craters around the earth (one in Arizona, another in Siberia, etc.) that are many hundreds of feet across.  But nobody alive today saw the events that caused them. By your broken definition of observation, science must be at a dead-end, unable to make any statements about the evidence or the event.  "Gee, guys, nobody saw it happen.  It could have been a giant dragon. It could have been a cosmic beachball.  Or it might have been God scooping up some dirt. We just can't tell from the evidence.  Everyone pack your bags and go home; this will just be another unsolved mystery."  :

That's obviously not how science works.  How? Because it isn't necessary to be present at an event, in order to draw scientific conclusions about that event.  All events leave behind evidence of their occurrence - details, "fingerprints", etc. which can be observed, measured, and incorporated into a testable hypothesis about the event which caused them.  Nobody alive was present at the Revolutionary War; do you *honestly* beleive that we cannot make any scientific conclusions about that historical event?

One other item: only the experimental results must be repeatable, not the initial event itself.  There are some events in history that may only occur once (again; the American Revolution).  But they still leave behind trace evidence of their occurrence; evidence which can be measured and tested.

So obviously, you are mistaken and do not understand what "observation" means in terms of science.

You haven't OBSERVED the span of time between the time of creation till now. You haven't confined all these variables into a "controlled environment" and ran base lines to establish definable limits and boundaries......

Neither of which is necessary.  See above.

ALL you have..... is what you call "laws that govern the universe".

Which is actually quite a lot for him to have.

you're not hitting on much when it comes to Scientific principles.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Educate yourself on what scientific observation means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation#Observation_in_science

I like how someone added "or additional observation" to the "test" phase.  It violates the scientific method in order to classify evolution as a theory (it is an untested hypothesis). 

 

[redgreen5]

I like how someone added "or additional observation" to the "test" phase.  It violates the scientific method in order to classify evolution as a theory (it is an untested hypothesis). 

1. No, it does not violate it.
2. An observation is an alternative to a test. An additional observation can validate or invalidate a prediction.  It doesn't always require a test.  This should be obvious.  Think about Galileo.
3. Evolution is most certainly a scientific theory, but it sounds like don't understand what that word means.  So it probably won't help to tell you that.

Evolution as a Fact and a Theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

 

[rsc2a]

I like how someone added "or additional observation" to the "test" phase.  It violates the scientific method in order to classify evolution as a theory (it is an untested hypothesis).

Actually, it's not untested at all.

All these people who accept "micro-evolution" are accepting the results of these tests.

 

[rsc2a]

3. Evolution is most certainly a scientific theory, but it sounds like don't understand what that word means.  So it probably won't help to tell you that.

Yup. I don't see people who deny evolution on the grounds that it's still a theory denying gravity for the same reasons....

 

[christundivided]

Observation in science is the observation of experimental data. There is *no* requirement in science that you have to be present to witness an event, in order to make valid scientific deductions about the event. That's obvious nonsense that most people would realize, if they would slow down and think about it for a moment. 

You really are a dumb twit. AN IDIOT of the first order.

Scientific observation is the first hand observation of nature and events as they occur as to understand those events. These are gather through the varies "senses".

Since you love wikipedia.... it might help if you review Observation....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation

Now run along and enjoy pay those higher gas prices.....

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=christundivided]
Observation in science is the observation of experimental data. There is *no* requirement in science that you have to be present to witness an event, in order to make valid scientific deductions about the event. That's obvious nonsense that most people would realize, if they would slow down and think about it for a moment. 


You really are a dumb twit. AN IDIOT of the first order. [/quote]

In point of fact, I know exactly what I'm talking about.  You're just embarrassed at getting your butt kicked all over the forum, and are now trying to regain some self respect by namecalling.  Very Christlike I might add.

Scientific observation is the first hand observation of nature and events as they occur as to understand those events. These are gather through the varies "senses".

1. It is more than that.  It also involves data, experimentation, and testing hypotheses.  Observation has many facets.

2. It does not have to be first-hand observation either. You can use someone else's observations to form your hypothesis or extend your own observations. If you don't know this material, then you're better off not making stuff up on the fly.  There really are some of us here who understand this material and will catch you doing that.

Since you love wikipedia.... it might help if you review Observation....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation

This is what happens when a loudmouth like yourself doesn't bother to read his own citation:

Observation in science

The scientific method requires observations of nature to formulate and test hypotheses.[citation needed] It consists of these steps:

1.Asking a question about a natural phenomenon
2.Making observations of the phenomenon
3.Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon
4.Predicting a logical consequence of the hypothesis
5.Testing the hypothesis by an experiment, an observational study, or a field study
6.Creating a conclusion with data gathered in the experiment

Observation plays a role in the second and fifth steps of the Scientific Method. However the need for reproducibility requires that observations by different observers can be comparable. Human sense impressions are subjective and qualitative making them difficult to record or compare. The idea of measurement evolved to allow recording and comparison of observations made at different times and places by different people. Measurement consists of using observation to compare the thing being measured to a standard; an artifact, process or definition which can be duplicated or shared by all observers, and counting how many of the standard units are comparable to the object. Measurement reduces an observation to a number which can be recorded, and two observations which result in the same number are equal within the resolution of the process.

Wow, wouldja look up there?  A six-step process that involves observation. Which is precisely what I said, above.  :

Now run along and enjoy pay those higher gas prices.....

Just another area you are utterly ignorant about.

 

[Castor Muscular]

I like how someone added "or additional observation" to the "test" phase.  It violates the scientific method in order to classify evolution as a theory (it is an untested hypothesis). 

1. No, it does not violate it.
2. An observation is an alternative to a test. An additional observation can validate or invalidate a prediction.  It doesn't always require a test.  This should be obvious.  Think about Galileo.

This is simply not true.  The observation starts the whole process because your hypothesis depends upon the interpretation of your observation.  If you substitute observations for tests, then you bias the whole process according to your preconceived notions. 

That's the whole problem with evolution to begin with.  A "tribe" of mosquitoes split into two groups and eventually the two groups cannot produce offspring.  So evolutionists make up the word "speciation" and say, "See?  They became two different species that can no longer produce offspring, and that proves evolution."  Then you point out that you can cross a lion with a tiger (two "species" far different than two mosquitoes" and get offspring.  So they say, "See?  They produce offspring because they have a common ancestor, and that proves evolution."  So when they CAN'T produce offspring, that's evolution.  And when they CAN produce offspring, that proves evolution.  So what they're really saying is, "It doesn't matter what evidence you present because we can imagine a way that it is supports evolution."  The operative word is "imagine", which is HYPOTHETICAL.  It's still an untested hypothesis. 

All you're really doing is restating a hypothesis.  I hypothesize that a lion and tiger can produce offspring because they share a common ancestor.  That's not evidence, that's imagination.  Test it.  Find a cat from which you can produce a lion and a tiger.  That's TESTING the hypothesis. 

Again, I hypothesize that speciation in mosquitoes is a step in macroevolution.  That's the hypothesis not the evidence.  Now produce something that ISN'T a mosquito from one of those two mosquitoes.  That's testing the hypothesis.

Here's the only way to graduate evolution from hypothesis to theory.  First, let me clarify that I'm talking about macroevolution, the notion that beetles and beavers have a common ancestor (I just picked those two species out of the air -- substitute any two unlikely relatives you want).  I'm not talking about variation or mutation within a species. 

Put what you consider to be a common ancestor in an environment and control the environment according to your hypothesis over millions or billions of years.  See if you end up with beetles and beavers.  End of story.  That's how you test evolution.  Don't whine about how it's impossible because it would take too long -- that's no excuse for short-circuiting the scientific method. 

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=Castor Muscular ]
1. No, it does not violate it.
2. An observation is an alternative to a test. An additional observation can validate or invalidate a prediction.  It doesn't always require a test.  This should be obvious.  Think about Galileo.


This is simply not true. [/quote]

I'm afraid that it *IS* true.

The observation starts the whole process because your hypothesis depends upon the interpretation of your observation.  If you substitute observations for tests, then you bias the whole process according to your preconceived notions. 

No. 

1. The tests are merely a physical representation of your hypothesis. 

2. There are some situations where a test isn't even possible.  I mentioned Galileo. What tests do you think he could perform on the moons of Jupiter (which he saw through his home-made telescope)?  Answer:  none; the moons are millions of miles away.  All he had was observations.  Yet he was able to formulate hypotheses about them. 

The same is true for Copernicus and the geocentric model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Copernican_system

That's the whole problem with evolution to begin with.

Actually, the biggest problem with evolution is that people have been told that they have to reject it as a litmus test of their Christian faith.  This leads people - like you - to try to disprove it without understanding it well enough to even re-state its scientific underpinnings. 

A "tribe" of mosquitoes split into two groups and eventually the two groups cannot produce offspring.  So evolutionists make up the word "speciation" and say, "See?

Sounds like you don't understand what constitutes a species either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html

Four different definitions of species:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

My particular favorite, ring species:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

They became two different species that can no longer produce offspring, and that proves evolution."

No. 
This is another evidence that you don't understand science in general, or evolution in particular.

Science does not say "x proves y".
What science instead says is "x is consistent with y", or "x is affirmative evidence in favor of y".
Mathematics and logic are the disciplines that claim proof.  What science claims is consistency or supportability for a particular claim.

Science works on the principle of ruling things out with testable, falsifiable hypotheses. A single negative test result can disprove a hypothesis.  Sometimes a single negative result can also disprove a theory (although in practice, it's not that simple).  But no amount of positive (i.e., agreeing) results can prove it true.

Then you point out that you can cross a lion with a tiger (two "species" far different than two mosquitoes" and get offspring.

Also badly understood - and you of course, have no idea what the genetic distance is between any two species, so your comment is rather absurd.

If you don't know what "species" means, and you don't know how science defines it, then how can you even begin to discuss this?

"See?  They produce offspring because they have a common ancestor, and that proves evolution." So when they CAN'T produce offspring, that's evolution.  And when they CAN produce offspring, that proves evolution. 

No scientist working in this field would ever say something that silly.

The operative word is "imagine", which is HYPOTHETICAL.  It's still an untested hypothesis. 

You clearly don't understand evolution, based upon your coloring book understanding of its scientific tenets.

Again, I hypothesize that speciation in mosquitoes is a step in macroevolution.  That's the hypothesis not the evidence. 

No, that's a conclusion, which would be part of a larger theory.  It's not a hypothesis; it's much too broad. The test you create to test your hypothesis are preceded by a prediction as well. Where have you stated your prediction?  You don't understand how to properly formulate the hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis#Scientific_hypothesis

Now produce something that ISN'T a mosquito from one of those two mosquitoes.  That's testing the hypothesis.

Uh, no, because your hypothesis hasn't been properly formed yet.

Here's the only way to graduate evolution from hypothesis to theory. 

Thus proving without a doubt that you don't understand hypothesis or theory. In science, hypotheses do not grow up to become theories. 

Until you self-educate on the terminology of science, you are waving your hands in the wind and trying to talk about things you don't understand.

Put what you consider to be a common ancestor in an environment and control the environment according to your hypothesis over millions or billions of years.  See if you end up with beetles and beavers.  End of story.  That's how you test evolution.

No, it isn't.

Don't whine about how it's impossible because it would take too long -- that's no excuse for short-circuiting the scientific method. 

*sigh*

1. The scientific method has no such requirement.

2. Don't expect other people to bring your coloring book misunderstanding of evolution to life for you.  Nobody is obligated to prove a cartoon version of evolution that bears no resemblance to the actual theory itself.

 

[christundivided]

Wow, wouldja look up there?  A six-step process that involves observation. Which is precisely what I said, above.  :

2. Making observations of the phenomenon

Did you miss step 2?

Now.... I know you can't be old enough to have witnessed the "phenomenon" of creation.

You really are slow......

 

[rsc2a]

Wow, wouldja look up there?  A six-step process that involves observation. Which is precisely what I said, above.  :

2. Making observations of the phenomenon

Did you miss step 2?

Now.... I know you can't be old enough to have witnessed the "phenomenon" of creation.

You really are slow......

1 - I witness the "phenomenon of creation" every time I look outside. I witness the "phenomenon of creation" every time I taste fresh bread. I witness the "phenomenon of creation" every time I kiss my wife. I witness the "phenomenon of creation" every time I listen to Hans Zimmer. I witness the "phenomenon of creation" every time I smell my daughter's hair.

2 - The fact that you can't intellectually separate "evolution" and "creation" shows evidence as to why you are unqualified to talk about either, at least on scientific terms.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=christundivided]
Wow, wouldja look up there?  A six-step process that involves observation. Which is precisely what I said, above.  :


2. Making observations of the phenomenon

Did you miss step 2?
[/quote]

Nope.  But you're about to show everyone how you misunderstand step 2.

Now.... I know you can't be old enough to have witnessed the "phenomenon" of creation.

1. In this case, the phenomenon is whatever you are observing in front of you. For example, a mountain range or an egg hatching or the formation of a tornado or a bed of stratified rocks. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon#Scientific_phenomena

Scientific phenomena

In scientific usage, a phenomenon is any event that is observable, however common it might be, even if it requires the use of instrumentation to observe, record, or compile data concerning it. For example, in physics, a phenomenon may be a feature of matter, energy, or spacetime, such as Isaac Newton's observations of the moon's orbit and of gravity, or Galileo Galilei's observations of the motion of a pendulum.[2]

2.  As for the original causative event behind any of those items above - see my example about the forensic investigation of the murder scene.  It isn't always required to be present to see the event, since all events leave behind evidence of their occurrence. 

You really are slow......

Perhaps. But compared to a dim bulb such as yourself, I move at the speed of light.

 

[christundivided]

Wow, wouldja look up there?  A six-step process that involves observation. Which is precisely what I said, above.  :

2. Making observations of the phenomenon

Did you miss step 2?

Now.... I know you can't be old enough to have witnessed the "phenomenon" of creation.

You really are slow......

1 - I witness the "phenomenon of creation" every time I look outside. I witness the "phenomenon of creation" every time I taste fresh bread. I witness the "phenomenon of creation" every time I kiss my wife. I witness the "phenomenon of creation" every time I listen to Hans Zimmer. I witness the "phenomenon of creation" every time I smell my daughter's hair.

1. You witness a result that is (in your mind) billions of years removed. You do not witness the phenomenon itself.

2 - The fact that you can't intellectually separate "evolution" and "creation" shows evidence as to why you are unqualified to talk about either, at least on scientific terms.

2. You don't know what I believe about evolution. Don't assume anything. I personally believe that "evolution" carries with it connotation of things getting "better". I personally believe a better word would be "devolving".

 

[christundivided]

In scientific usage, a phenomenon is any event that is observable, however common it might be, even if it requires the use of instrumentation to observe, record, or compile data concerning it. For example, in physics, a phenomenon may be a feature of matter, energy, or spacetime, such as Isaac Newton's observations of the moon's orbit and of gravity, or Galileo Galilei's observations of the motion of a pendulum.[2]

LOL... you are so DENSE.

Newton observed the moon moving. Galileo observed the motion of the "pendulum". These are "created" objects. You did not watch the events that brought them into being. Yet, you think you know how this happened....

Silly rabbit, Science isn't for kids.

 

[rsc2a]

Now.... I know you can't be old enough to have witnessed the "phenomenon" of creation.

You really are slow......

1 - I witness the "phenomenon of creation" every time I look outside. I witness the "phenomenon of creation" every time I taste fresh bread. I witness the "phenomenon of creation" every time I kiss my wife. I witness the "phenomenon of creation" every time I listen to Hans Zimmer. I witness the "phenomenon of creation" every time I smell my daughter's hair.

1. You witness a result that is (in your mind) billions of years removed. You do not witness the phenomenon itself.

This is why I told you that you aren't allowed to use the word "science". Like your asinine comment that we can't really know where babies come from (and like redgreen5 has been explaining), you don't have to witness first cause to in order to make observations. Maybe another example will help (doubtful):

I don't have to see where you were standing when you throw an baseball. I don't have to measure how fast you threw it or at what angle the release occurred. However, with just by observing a few points on the arc of that trajectory, I will be able to tell you precisely where you threw it, how hard you threw it, and what angle you threw it at. I don't have observe the initial cause in order to determine quite a bit of information about the initial cause.

2 - The fact that you can't intellectually separate "evolution" and "creation" shows evidence as to why you are unqualified to talk about either, at least on scientific terms.

2. You don't know what I believe about evolution. Don't assume anything. I personally believe that "evolution" carries with it connotation of things getting "better". I personally believe a better word would be "devolving".

Now you are trying to justify your position by mixing natural evolution with social evolution? You do realize these are completely different fields of study, right?

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=christundivided]
In scientific usage, a phenomenon is any event that is observable, however common it might be, even if it requires the use of instrumentation to observe, record, or compile data concerning it. For example, in physics, a phenomenon may be a feature of matter, energy, or spacetime, such as Isaac Newton's observations of the moon's orbit and of gravity, or Galileo Galilei's observations of the motion of a pendulum.[2]

LOL... you are so DENSE.
[/quote]

No, but you're about to step on your own foot again.

Newton observed the moon moving. Galileo observed the motion of the "pendulum". These are "created" objects. You did not watch the events that brought them into being. Yet, you think you know how this happened....

1. Whether they are created or not is irrelevant to the point I am making.

2. The point of the quotation was to show you that the word "phenomenon" applies to an individual event that you are viewing right now.  You had the definition wrong (big surprise, I know).

3. You're the dense one here. You think you're responding to me above.  But what you're actually responding to is the entry from Wikipedia that I copied and pasted into my post.  :

Silly rabbit, Science isn't for kids.

You haven't got the first clue what science is.  Go back to your coloring books.

 

[christundivided]

This is why I told you that you aren't allowed to use the word "science". Like your asinine comment that we can't really know where babies come from (and like redgreen5 has been explaining), you don't have to witness first cause to in order to make observations. Maybe another example will help (doubtful):

Okay okay.... You know that a sperm and a egg produce a baby...... BUT YOU NO IDEA WHY. NONE. YOU CAN'T REPRODUCE IT WITHOUT FIRST HAVING...... real Human male "SPERM"..... and real Human female...."EGG".

Then you tell me you know all there is to know about making a "baby".

IDIOT ALERT....

I don't have to see where you were standing when you throw an baseball. I don't have to measure how fast you threw it or at what angle the release occurred. However, with just by observing a few points on the arc of that trajectory, I will be able to tell you precisely where you threw it, how hard you threw it, and what angle you threw it at. I don't have observe the initial cause in order to determine quite a bit of information about the initial cause.

OKAY.... You might be able to do this. BUT what if I....

1. I throw it one hundred times and you only witnessed "one".
2. Maybe the other 99 times I maintained "speed" but change the "trajectory". Would you still consider yourself to know everything there is to know about how I throw a baseball?

Thanks for a perfect illustration of your arrogant attitude toward "knowing" the "unknowable."

Now you are trying to justify your position by mixing natural evolution with social evolution? You do realize these are completely different fields of study, right?

Nope. Not at all. Just give us areference that contrasts "natural evolution and "social evolution".....BUT

Don't change your statement in doing so. The core problem with "you people" is the fact you change terms and definitions on a whim.... to fit your own ideals.

 

[rsc2a]

That's the whole problem with evolution to begin with.

Actually, the biggest problem with evolution is that people have been told that they have to reject it as a litmus test of their Christian faith. 

I just thought this should be re-stated again....often.

 

[christundivided]

3. You're the dense one here. You think you're responding to me above.  But what you're actually responding to is the entry from Wikipedia that I copied and pasted into my post.  :

I know... You're the one that missed the point. Thanks for clarifying your own statement.

You haven't got the first clue what science is.  Go back to your coloring books.

I'll take a good coloring book any day over a MORON that thinks he knows all the ends and outs of God's creative acts.

Go grab another "bunsen burner" and roast some marshmallows....

 

[rsc2a]

This is why I told you that you aren't allowed to use the word "science". Like your asinine comment that we can't really know where babies come from (and like redgreen5 has been explaining), you don't have to witness first cause to in order to make observations. Maybe another example will help (doubtful):

Okay okay.... You know that a sperm and a egg produce a baby...... BUT YOU NO IDEA WHY. NONE.

Actually, we have very good ideas why. You're still speaking from a position of ignorance and thinking that the "louder" you talk, the more correct you are.

YOU CAN'T REPRODUCE IT WITHOUT FIRST HAVING...... real Human male "SPERM"..... and real Human female...."EGG".

Then you tell me you know all there is to know about making a "baby".

Bio-genesis ≠ evolution

IDIOT ALERT....

:

I don't have to see where you were standing when you throw an baseball. I don't have to measure how fast you threw it or at what angle the release occurred. However, with just by observing a few points on the arc of that trajectory, I will be able to tell you precisely where you threw it, how hard you threw it, and what angle you threw it at. I don't have observe the initial cause in order to determine quite a bit of information about the initial cause.

OKAY.... You might be able to do this. BUT what if I....

No. I could do this.

1. I throw it one hundred times and you only witnessed "one".
2. Maybe the other 99 times I maintained "speed" but change the "trajectory". Would you still consider yourself to know everything there is to know about how I throw a baseball?

Yes. Do you want to re-read the example I posted, or do you want to continue looking ignorant?

Thanks for a perfect illustration of your arrogant attitude toward "knowing" the "unknowable."

LOL!

Now you are trying to justify your position by mixing natural evolution with social evolution? You do realize these are completely different fields of study, right?

Nope. Not at all. Just give us areference that contrasts "natural evolution and "social evolution".....BUT

http://www.geoffrey-hodgson.info/user/bin/generalizdarwin.pdf

Seriously....these are the kinds of comments that convince me that you really have no clue on earth what you are talking about.

Don't change your statement in doing so. The core problem with "you people" is the fact you change terms and definitions on a whim.... to fit your own ideals.

The "core problem" with "us people" is that we use definitions correctly.

 

[rsc2a]

Christundivided -

And modern humanistic science also contradicts Genesis from day 1.
Modern science teaches that light was created before matter but in Genesis 1:2 we have an earth which is formless and void and darkness all around the earth. If there was light - like from the sun before this than it wouldn't be dark.

Now another question would be did God bring light into being by creating the sun (which would mean it would take about 8 minutes 18 seconds for light to get from the sun to the earth) or was it instantaneous? From what we see about God elsewhere in scripture we see that he does things instantaneously that are out of the ordinary.

Maybe, just maybe....the "light" in Gen 1:3-5 wasn't...

"the natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible; electromagnetic radiation from about 390 to 740 nm in wavelength"

...all these pesky little questions go away when you consider that option as a possibility.

Maybe.... it isn't. My "maybe" is just as good as your "maybe".

No...your "maybe" isn't anywhere near as good my "maybe".

My "maybe" takes into account the culture in which the text was written, the genre of the text, what the natural world tells us about creation, and a variety of historical interpretations.

Your "maybe" ignores the culture in which it was written, ignores the genre of the text, ignores what the natural law tells us about creation, and is based on limited (in both historicity and acceptance) interpretations of Scripture.

As such, you are most likely wrong.

- Do you want to address the other flaws I've pointed out, or do you want to continue to try to argue against the science?