Keith Devens .com

Why is this so surprising? Evolution is a scientific theory based on the facts at hand combined with logical conjecture and educated guesswork.

The nice thing about science is that people continue to (ahem) evolve theory as new facts, scenarios, and ideas are proposed. Sometimes it completely discounts a theory, other times it just modifies it. Evolutionary principles are just best guesses that we tend to treat as fact because it's the best we can do. I'm a bit confused, are you trying to hold this up as an example of why the whole Adam/Eve thing is correct? If so you'll have to disprove not just evolution, but factors of biology, archeology, physics, etc etc.

Macro-evolution is not a scientific theory. It's a theory of origins not subject to the scientific method.

I'm a bit confused, are you trying to hold this up as an example of why the whole Adam/Eve thing is correct? If so you'll have to disprove not just evolution, but factors of biology, archeology, physics, etc. etc.

Nope, I wouldn't attempt to provide proof for one statement by showing "disproof" for something else. Even if evolution isn't true, it wouldn't logically mean that therefore the Biblical account of creation is true. I do believe that the Biblical account of creation is true, I'm just saying that it wouldn't logically follow from the falsehood of macro-evolution.

However, I question your statement that I'd have to disprove all these other factors of biology, archeology, physics, etc. as if by rejecting macro-evolution I have to reject most of modern science . Really, I don't see any parts of archeology, biology, or physics (?) that support macro-evolution, and there are tons of reasons to believe that it's not true (we can go into my reasons if you'd like). To me, macro-evolution is just a fancy "creation-myth" for atheists.

I do, however, believe in micro-evolution. Are you aware of the difference?