Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate

No. Evolution is only about how life diversified. The actual origin is irrelevant, it could be magic, aliens (that just moves the issue astronomically), by act of creation from Nu or any other means. Edited by jar, : wrong ward

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Is it time to move the propulsion to its own thread?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

see hereIt can either donate or accept a proton.

For an example scroll down here

Been there, done that, and ain't it neat when you do get it?

The fact that the genetic bottleneck signature in almost EVERY existing animal species and EVERY existing plant species that would have to be there if the flood happened does not exist.

As a devout Christian I have never seen anyway that either of the creation tales found in Genesis can be the basis for any factual description of what happened. There are simply too many points that are refuted by the evidence available today.A Creation model must simply set the Bible stories aside and be based on science to work. In the end that Creation model can best be summed up by the Nicene Creed instead of the Bible.

Always willing to discuss the subject but in the words of Bishop Sims,"In the Bible the intermingling of why and how is evident, especially in the opening chapters of Genesis. There the majestic statements of God's action, its value and the place of humanity in it, use an orderly and sequential statement of method. The why of the divine work is carried in a primitive description of how the work was done.But even here the distinction between religion and science is clear. In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man. Textual research shows that these two accounts are from two distinct eras, the first later in history, the second earlier. "From his Pastoral letter on Evolution.Since there isn't even one creation model in the Bible but rather at least two mutually exclusive tales, it is a difficult undertaking.

Sure. Two different traditions, different eras, cultures. Politics.