Evolutionist's.....care to discuss?

[.blank cd]

You answered your own question right here.Either the entire Bible is true or none of it is.

Yes, either Genesis is true or none of it is.

I would like to see this explanation be given in the court of law in the case i listed above. The jury would be biased to side with " one of their own" and would be considered unfair. Their opinion would be biased. The point was to show the biased agenda of evolutionary scientists.

If you're on trial for killing a black man, and you know you definitely killed him, and you get convicted of murder by a jury full of the most racist black people you can find, you think there's a bias there?

You care to still use the Miller-Urey experiment? Or can we go ahead and agree it is invalid?

If it were invalid, I wouldn't use it. It is the case though that scientists have used the experiment as recently as 2009 with conclusive results. No scientists have ever ruled out the first early atmosphere, they have only tested other ideas.

It is extremely funny how you agreed that the evidence that clearly exists, is up to interpretation, yet when that same evidence is used to be the base of Creationalism...it is dismissed. One man in the video put it this way," Creation science and intelligent design theory are not "based" on theology of any sort, but rather empirical evidence.

which is....the bible?

Oh and by the way, adaptation can happen without evolution. Adaptation is a result of environmental effects whereas evolution would be an actual change in the genetic make up of an organism to adapt. Adaptation can be seperate and can be used by either intelligent design or evolution theory.

I didn't say adaptation wasn't separate.