Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid

Your use of Patterson's quote may have been accurate in terms of the actual words used and the order they came in, but they were taken completely out of context and so were used to give an untrue impression of what he actually said. If this is an example of your best debating skills, I suggest you give up now. Misrepresenting people is JUST NOT DONE! Your reply to Loudmouth is going to fool no-one but yourself and the odd earthworm. All you have done is show that you can't debate in good faith and that you're not averse to tactics which border on the dishonest. Any moderators out there who feel that the message I'm replying to breaks the terms and conditions of the forum?

I tried to be specific, Ken, but your continual editing of posts that I'm trying to reply to makes it an exercise in futility and causes me to lose the will to live!! If I tell you that the bottom line of your argument seems to be "A week is seven days because seven days make a week", what comment would you make about that? I can authoritatively inform you that Noddy must be a real person because Toytown has day and night and a big sun in the sky, just like we have now, so Noddy must exist (or have existed) and live beside Big Ears and Master Tubby Bear.Have you considered that man wrote the Genesis account to tie in with his belief that we should rest on the Sabbath? What better way to get everyone to do it than to tell everyone that God did that also!! It doesn't matter that a week has seven days then and now, or that a day has 24 hours then and now. It doesn't prove a thing!As I said, I'm avoiding getting into the specifics because I have no guarrantee that the specifics I refer to will still be there by the time i post this message. I don't have the patience of Brian to disect your ideas bit by bit. All I can say is that the information you have provided isn't going anywhere and proves nothing. You've made the assertions so it's up to you to provide the proof of their validity - show me I'm wrong. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!

It would be of some help if you actually spoke in plain English. What am I supposed to address in your statement

The numerical qualifier demands a 24-hour day.

I mean, what are you actually trying to say - that a day has 24 hours? You say that in every instance it refers to a 24 hour day. How do you know that? Where in the Bible does it say that a day has 24 hours? Where does it even define a day? The term "day" is used in Genesis 1 and it MAY mean a 24 hour day, but then again it may not. Anyway, how could the writer of Genesis know that? No-one was around at the time except Adam a few days into the project. How do we know what the term "day" means before there was anyone around to experience it? Are you claiming that man didn't write Genesis, but God did?Just because references to "day" in other parts of the Bible seem to refer to a 24 hour period you can't use that as proof that god created everything in 7 24 hour days. Think of the period of time that the Bible covers, the number of writers, scribes involved. Do you really think that the whole thing could possibly be consistent? To be honest, if it was totally consistent then I would have a bit of trouble with it.I've said this before on here, but its woth repeating. I'm a Christian because I believe that Christ died for my sins and that Christ was the Son of God and he was God. Whether He created the world in 7 24 hour days is a moot point. If my faith rested on this inconsequential point, then it would be long gone.I don't understand your need for proof of everything. If you have proof, you don't need faith. Its easy to believe in something which is proven, anyone can do it. The Christian path is not the easy path BECAUSE it requires belief without proof ie faith.Finally, could you stop making assumptions about everyone on here not wanting to debate with you because we can't refute your points. Sometimes I struggle to work out exactly what your point is and then when I've worked it out and get around to replying, the cornerstone of my understanding is edited out of your post. Oh, and I do apologise if replying to me isn't beneficial to the forum - I had no idea I was such an millstone to debate. Mea culpa, I'll pray the full 60 decades of the Rosary

What else is our planet and solar system but a microlevel of the macrolevel of the Universe? By your own statements you've demonstrated that you don't understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and neither, apparently does the web site you pointed us all at. Of course evolution will violate this law but only if your version of this law is correct. Not only will your version prevent evolution, it will also prevent babies, eating, growth in plants and animals and many of the biochemical reactions that take place in your body and keep you alive. Since you are still alive I have to therefore assume that your version of the theory has been disproved to your satisfaction.

The pink unicorn business has nothing to do with disproving the existence of God. It just illustrates the point that just because someone says it it doesn't mean its true. In other words, just making a statement doesn't make it right. You have to then provide EVIDENCE to back up your pronouncements. You are free to say whatever you want, but if you want it to be taken seriously by the scientific community you have to give up the freedom to say that unfounded assertions are true. Does this help?

Oh boy, you really have missed the entire point of the posts about unicorns haven't you? Laugh - I almost started! Ken, why don't you go back and read the original unicorn post? Maybe the light will dawn, but then again, maybe it won't. Personally, I'm not holding my breath. Do you deliberately try to misunderstand what people write or does it just come naturally?

One last reply. Ken, abiogenesis has nothing to do with this thread that YOU started. You've moaned, whined and complained about people posting messages off topic in the past and now you complain that they WON'T post off topic? What do you want us to do? You wanted to discuss evolution, so discuss it, debate it. You didn't mention abiogenesis in your thread title. At the risk of sounding like you, why don't you stick to the topic instead of changing the subject and running away claiming that everyone else ran away. We're still here waiting to debate your original assertion if you ever get round to actually posting some evidence instead of your own blinkered opinions.