Dawkins points out, and I believe correctly so, that toe doesn't prove there was no creator, it just makes it possible for us to intelligently accept that life ( don't nitpick my wording)to exist without.
This would be a proper understanding. We do not discuss 'proof' in the absolute sense, simply the preponderance of evidence and reason.
All I meant to say was, if toe could Happen, ev wins. And if it couldn't, we don't prove creation, but we don't have the viable alternative of ev. If you find another alternative, fine, I was not discussing that.
Who do you mean by 'you' in this instance?
I think you will find that, in this forum, if you are a YEC, it will be extremely hard to appear reasonable. We've seen just about every ploy in the book. Sorry, but we are skeptics, after all.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2