God used Evolution in 6 days

I know this is way off topic for the thread itself, but I wanted to throw in a slight correction to the above statement.Pedophiles, as in those who are sexually attracted (and have sex with) both underage boys and girls are by nature (and definition) bisexual.Pedophiles, as used as a replacement term for child molester, who rape BOTH boys and girls are primarily bisexual, though heavily conflicted and confused about their sexuality which leads to the insane behaviors they act out on children.Murderers may have more heterosexual males among their ranks for the simple reason there are more heterosexual men than homosexual men in the general population.Murderers who target their victims based on sexual issues, or commit them in combination with sexual abuse of the victim, are often sexually conflicted and not truly hetero at all, though will often profess that orientation as some sort of superiority to others (that confliction usually being what drove them off the deep end).Some statistics have shown that a greater proportion of homosexuals end up commiting crimes (specifically sex crimes) than heterosexual men. Which means that despite overall percentages of prison populations, in the outside world homosexuals ARE more likely to be the sexual criminal.This is not to say that I put any stock in statistical stereotyping of any kind. They are only good for bookkeeping, not marginalizing segments of the population.Besides, whether statistics favor something other than the "demon" he created, such things actually do occur. Even if they are the minority, clearly he thinks homosexual pedophilic murderers are the lowest of the low.I'll stick with murderers as a whole being the lowest. Once the killing starts I can't find much use in sorting them according to reason why.------------------
holmes

Actually this is what I am interested in myself and apologize for my earlier post continuing the topic drift.Let me throw this in as a sort of extension of the ultimate question minnemooseus posed.If God put in so much effort to make it look like the universe is old, and that life evolved (ie created the "fake age"), isn't it almost blasphemous to question the evidence he provided for us? I mean his doing this does indicate he wanted humans to believe in the physical mechanisms he gave us evidence for, right?It seems to me that evidence ought to trump text, as the universe is beyond question the work of a God or Gods (if it had an intelligent creator), while a book claiming to have been written by God could have been written by anyone.------------------
holmes