Last Updated December 6, 2003
The Home link will now take you to the blog. This site is no longer being updated.
Bruno (last name removed at request of Bruno)
This exchange starts out innocuously enough. This guy seems convinced that rational people turn away from religion solely because of fundamentalist sects and not because the religion itself is irrational. He desperately tries to reconcile the sequence of events described in Genesis with the current cosmological model of the evolution of the universe, citing that each "day" in creation took thousands of years (that pegs the total creation time at no greater than a few hundred thousand years, maximum ... still about 4 or 5 orders of magnitude off). After I pointed out that it didn't even matter because the Bible says that the stars were created after the planets, he resorted to simply absurd interpretations of the text, flatly ignoring the part where it explicitly states the stars' creation, to try and reconcile Biblical idiocy with observation and science.
This exchange is a good example of why arguing out of your ass is a bad idea. I'm fairly certain that, had I kept pointing out Biblical errors and inconsistencies with real life, he'd have kept finding new ways to "rationalize" them with real life. In other words, I tell him what's wrong, and he tries to fix it. You'll notice this trend as the exchange goes along. It gets difficult to follow sometimes, but if you focus on the overall substance of his argument rather than the grainy, confounding details of how he arrived at his conclusions, you'll see that he's plainly full of shit. He admits that he's never studied logic, brilliantly exemplified in his only actual logical criticism of my arguments, which was a slightly more stylized version of, "Nuh uh! That's you!" after I accused him of circular reasoning.
Among other things. It's not JUST creationists.
EDITOR'S NOTE: And so it begins. Religion has become something of a sacred cow in America, so any kind of negative impact it has on someone's life must be the result of "extremists," who dare to interpret the text at face value. There is no reason to interpret the Bible any other way; doing so simply adds needless and unjustifiable weight on to an explanation. The big difference between reasonable people and fundamentalists is that reasonable people can see that the Bible is complete bullshit from a literal interpretation. Most moderates (like this guy) start from the assumption that the Bible is righteous and correct, so any absurdities revealed by people like myself are the results of "misinterpretation." Needless to say, this is obviously a textbook example of circular reasoning.
I am NOT a creationist; however I DO believe in Creation. (Remark the slight difference.) During my youth I was convinced that "Evolution is a fact".
Which it is.
EDITOR'S NOTE: He qualifies as an "intelligent design" person. In reality, intelligent design is creationism in a clown suit. Tacking "god" on to an already satisfactory explanatory mechanism is useless from a scientific perspective.
Allow me to make a remark on this phrase: "creationists want to throw my entire field of study out the window because it conflicts with the Holy Scriptures." In my humble opinion, I don't think that your field of study contradicts with thie Holy Scriptures. Yes, it DOES contradict with the Creationists' interpretation that the whole Universe would have been created in literal days of 24 hours.
Creationists interpret Genesis at face value, which is the most straightforward way to do it. I don't have a problem with Christians who try and reconcile the Bible with scientific understanding beyond the fact that they are engaging in a textbook example of circular reasoning, but my main concern is for people to understand what exactly evolution is and how science works.
There's no need in the Bible to see it like those extremists do, because
While this interpretation could be considered valid, I have a hard time believing that the original writer of Genesis meant "thousands of years" when he said "a day." Even so, Genesis is still disastrously contradictory with the current big bang and evolutionary models. It posits that stars were created AFTER the planets (regardless of how you choose to interpret the timeframe), which is impossible. The heavy elements on our planet were created in the cores of dying stars that went supernova, which is the only way those elements can be created. However you look at it, Genesis is simply wrong.
Someone who sees it like I do, is Mr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lnnig [or: Loennig], Dr. in Genetics, Max-Planck-Institut fr Zchtungsforschung. [Cultivation Research]
Hm ... I'd rather not run it through the Google translator. A lot of the meaning will, no doubt, be lost. If you could summarize the basic points for me, that'd do.
I did not read all of your other pages, but I saw some titles like: Prayer in Public Schools, Why Is It Wrong? Yes, in the name of religious freedom, it IS wrong, if people who have another opinion, are pressed to pray with a certain religion. I would even have religious objections against such religious suppression.
That's barely scratching the surface of the issue, to be honest. Religious bigots often say that they'll allow any form of prayer in schools, which is just a tacit way of saying, "Christians are the majority, so it'll be almost all Christian prayers, but we'll put up with the other guys if we have to." In reality, the government is supposed to remain totally silent on the subject of religion, neither endorsing nor condemning any specific or general set of religious beliefs. That is why even allowing everyone to pray in public schools is a violation of the right to freedom of religion. What about atheists, who don't pray to anyone? Why should they have to put up with being a singled-out minority?
Incidentally, I'd like to see how far the "tolerance" of the prayer in public school advocates goes. Would they allow a child to pray to Satan or Baal while everyone else prays to Jesus? Or how about allowing a neo-Nazi child to pray to Norse gods, or ask Jesus to smite the Jews? Tolerance, indeed.
iToday only this. (It can take several days before more reply comes.)
Perhaps you should read it again. Genesis 1:16 states:
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.This is after verse 1, and makes it clear that "the heavens" does not include the stars, planets and other celestial bodies. Even if the last part of the verse was not there, it still implies that the Sun was created AFTER the Earth. This is also after God creates the sea, which apparently existed prior to the existence of light, which came into existence in Genesis 1:3, when God says, "Let there be light." Genesis 1:2 states:
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.Sea water contains oxygen, which cannot be formed outside of the cores of stars or similar high-pressure/temperature environments. And, Andromeda isn't a nebula. It's our closest galaxy.
Sorry, but this whole series of events is nothing even resembling scientifically accurate.
Verse 3-31. Commonly called "creation days".
Which are completely screwed up. The creation order in the Bible goes like this:
EDITOR'S NOTE: Oh, it's also absurd that the Sun was created before the rest of the stars. Our sun is actually pretty young compared to a lot of the other stars out there, and the Bible never describes any stars going supernova and making the creation of our solar system possible. It simply says they popped into existence and implies that they were viewable from Earth, even though their light would have taken millions of years to reach it.
Describes how THE EARTH was prepared for life and how life was created on it. These "days" took thousands of years each.
I find that difficult to believe. Whoever was penning the story would know the difference between a single day and many thousands of years, unless God (who was "divinely inspiring" him) intentionally wanted to deceive him.
EDITOR'S NOTE: There are creationists who claim that all our scientific measurements of the universe are deceptions planted there by God or Satan (take your pick). If they can use that excuse, I certainly can.
Genesis was written for people in all centuries.
It was a fairy tale written to explain the creation of the Earth and to keep women subservient to men. It is, in no way, a replacement for the current evolutionary and cosmological models, nor is it a supplement.
It describes in an simple way how _an earthly observer_ [if one would have been there] would have seen things happening. For example, veirse 3: "Let light come to be", means that light started to become visible from the EARTH.
Light was created about 10-12 seconds after the big bang, when X-particles decayed into photons. Light existed well before the Earth did.
My view of Genesis is from a purely analytical standpoint. I look at it without assuming that it must be correct and analyze it objectively. An objective analysis shows that it is irretrievably wrong.
You say thay Genesis describes "that stars were created AFTER the planets". If you still believe so, can you please show me why? Maybe I can try to clear this creationist misperception.
Because the Bible explicitly states this. It states that the Earth and water predated the stars, which is absurd.
Maybe you mean something similar like: "The Bible is God's inspired Word, so the proven facts are in harmony with it."
Yes. That is circular reasoning. You assume that the Bible is infallible, so you go to great lengths to try and reconcile it with observed fact, even if it blatantly contradicts what we see.
Well, Damien, I did not study "logic" or rhetorics, but be careful, evolutionists love circular reasoning as well: "There is no God, so creation is just impossible."
That is a strawman. Evolutionary theory makes no predictions about the existence of a god. A "creation" as you describe it would not be consistent with what we have observed, so it is wrong.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The aforementioned instance of "Nuh uh! That's you!" Helpful hint for all of you readers: if you've never studied logic, don't try and bluff your way through the a debate with someone who has. You'll just end up looking foolish.
or: "Creationists talk rubbish. So there was no creation." (or is that a Strawman or maybe a false dilemma?)
Creationists talk rubbish for the reasons I detail on my website. It is not circular reasoning to conclude that, since their claims are not consistent with observed fact, that they are wrong.
EDITOR'S NOTE: How can you possibly confuse a strawman with a false dilemma?
Let me use an English example to try to make it clear. Imagine someone tells you a story that happened "In the days of ...(For example Abraham Lincoln)". I thought they even say "in the day of Shakespeare" (singular). Does that refer to something about [days of 24 hours] of Abraham Lincoln?
This is nothing but semantics and wordplay. You have no evidence that the Bible is referring to anything more than our standard definition of a day, other than your assumption that it must conform to reality because of your assumption that it is infallible, and that is circular reasoning. You simply cannot escape this fact. If we didn't have scientific evidence that the face-value interpretation of the Bible was wrong, you'd probably be insisting that the Genesis story should be taken literally. You conform your interpretation of the Bible to real life, based on the assumption that the Bible is infallible. Again, circular reasoning.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Isn't it amazing how, for the 1500 or so years before the discoveries of physics and thermodynamics, the Bible literally meant six creation days? Now, after the discoveries of thermodynamics (Kelvin predicted the Earth's age at hundreds of millions of years due to heat flow, and he was a creationist) and modern cosmology, the Bible all of a sudiden meant "thousands of years" for each "day" all along?
So I give you some info on the word "yom" (day). (I found back the original English quote:) William Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: "A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens."
As before, this is pure assumption on your part. I'll repeat that your interpretation that "day" must mean thousands or millions of years is no more valid than my interpretation that it must mean one day, and it's even less valid, because it requires us to make unjustifiable assumptions (i.e. "the Bible is infallible") and interpret what is written beyond face value.
The translational problems surrounding the Bible, quite frankly, aren't my problem. It's clear that those who wrote it had the scientific knowledge of children, so attempting to reconcile it with scientific observation and theory is a waste of time.
This is what I mean, buddy: Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first "day," but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see, because of the thick hot cloudy atmospere, caused by volcanic activity. (Tell me the details; you're the astronomer.)
This is irrelevant. The story is written from someone observing God and Earth. I'm not an astronomer, either; I'm a physics student. Of course, if the Sun and Moon were in space long before the first day, that would mean that they predated the existence of light, which is again, absurd.
Starting from this "day" or period, an earthly observer [if one would have been there] would have seen light starting to become visible from the EARTH. Remark: I did put emphasis on "EARTH".
The text said that God MADE the stars on that day. It is clear that the story is written from a third-person omniscient observer perspective/the perspective of God, so you're artificially changing the context in order to give credibility to your circular reasoning. The meaning of "made" is quite clear to any objective observer.
(I don't read that light is CREATED at that point of time. There's a difference between being created and becoming more visible from the earth.)
There's a whole world of difference between light being made and light reaching the Earth, as well. We don't say that black holes were created when we first observed them, and no reasonable person would. Even those who wrote the Bible would know the difference between something's creation and the beginning of its observation.
So, at this point of time, the earth is chilling down etc., and the atmosphere allows more light to reach the surface of the earth.
Light was ALWAYS on the surface of the Earth; the only difference is that billions of years ago, it came from surface activity.
Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: "And gradually light came into existence." (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was "light diffused," as indicated by a comment about Gen 1: 3 in Rotherham's Emphasised Bible.
This is, again, pure conjecture. Give me one reason I should buy into any of these assumptions your making instead of taking the Bible at face value, other than your unsupportable premise that the Bible is infallible.
Perhaps I DID read it very careful. I believe just as I told you: sitars etc. are created long before that, (in the beginning, Gen. 1:1)
No, they were created in Genesis 1:16; the text states this quite explicitly, and this point is not open for debate.
The word that is translated as "made" in verse 16 is "waiya'as", form 'asah'. That is not the same as the word "create", the word that is found in verse 1, 21, 27 and in Chapter 2:3. Literally: "And ...proceeded to make" (That is a progressive action.)
Yes, he "proceeded to make" the stars after he'd already "proceeded to make" the Earth. What's the difference?
About the "lights": Previously, on the first "day," (verse 3) the expression "Let light come to be" was used. The Hebrew word there used for "light" is 'or, meaning light in a general sense.
"Light in a general sense" would be the EM spectrum, which exists in the form of everything from infrared radiation to gamma rays.
But on the fourth "day," the Hebrew word changes to ma'or', which means the SOURCE OF LIGHT.
So, the source of light came into existence AFTER light? That's absurd.
Rotherham, in a footnote on "Luminaries" in the Emphasised Bible, says: "In ver. 3, 'ôr , light diffused." Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma'ohr' in verse 14 means something "affording light."
If the Bible, in its original text, is so widely interpretable, why should we trust anything it says? It's simply NOT a scientific document! It's not clear on ANYTHING, as this whole discussion is showing.
EDITOR'S NOTE: I originally snipped this part in my reply because it was more of the same, and I was growing tired of telling him that his reasoning was circular over and over again, but I'm obliged to publish the entire exchange here.
On the first "day" DIFFUSED LIGHT penetrated the "swaddling bands", but the SOURCES of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth "day," things apparently changed.
An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen-a requirement for animal life. Psalm 136:7-9.
Psalms 136:7-9 has little to do with any of this.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Pslams 136:7-9 states
To him that made great lights: for his mercy endureth for ever:
This implies nothing about carbon dioxide (which the early Israelites didn't even know existed).
I am aware of the fact that Andromeda is a galaxy. In some languages over here it's usually called "Andromeda-nevel" (Dutch) or "Andromeda-Nebel" (German)which I thought to translate correctly as "Nebula"If English people don't call it that way, well, Ok. I very well understand that the word "Nebula" does NOT mean that Andromeda is some misty stuff. However, it is possible that this name has become a little bit oldfashioned.
iGalaxies and nebulae are vastly different in an astronomical sense.I was not aware of that. Excuse me if I choose a wrong word every now and then.
I was just making a minor correction.
If you want to avoid blowing this exchange up into long and boring E-mails, we can stick to the core of the debate, which is as follows.
You assume that the Bible MUST be absolutely consistent with observation because you assume that it is divinely inspired and infallible. This is circular reasoning. "The Bible must be right because it was divinely inspired, so it can't be wrong." Your justification for trying to rationalize the Bible with observation is circular reasoning. Thus, you have no justification for your assumptions of Biblical infallibility. Since you interpret the text beyond its face-value implications, you add extra effort to the interpretation without justification. That is why your attempts are fallacious. We have no reason to evaluate the Bible at anything beyond face value, because when you objectively evaluate something, you cannot have preordained conclusions, like Biblical infallibility. My evaluation is objective. Yours is subjective.
I referred you to different applications of the word YOM ("day"). I gave EXAMPLES of Yom, applied to different time periods. But you choose to call that "translational problems surrounding the Bible", "pure assumption on my part", "conjecture", etc.
That's because it's an appeal to ignorance. You basically say that we don't know what the word "day" means in the original context, so it must be inline with observation. If there is no conclusive evidence that the word "yom" means a billion years or 2 hours, how can we draw any conclusions from the Biblical creation story? Furthermore, it's a bit difficult to believe that the writer of Genesis would have just given a random time period without specifying how long it was. What's more, you ignore the connection between Genesis and the Jewish calendar. If the author didn't mean a literal day, then why did the Jews make a week 7 literal days long, beginning on Sunday and ending on the Jewish Sabbath, Saturday? There is overwhelming contextual evidence that points to the days in Genesis being referred to as a regular, common day. You also gloss over the fact that the Bible describes "the evening" and "the morning" of each day.
"Interpretational literalism" is considered to be a fallacy by bible scholars. Even most (beginner's) "how to read the bible"-booklets will state that.
That's because science has long since proven literal interpretations of the Bible to be laughably incorrect. Biblical scholars analyze the Bible from a subjective point of view and do the same thing do: try to reconcile it with real life, even though such a pursuit is hopeless. There is no "fallacy" in interpreting the Bible the way it is written. Give me a reason why I should interpret it any differently, other than "Biblical scholars say so."
EDITOR'S NOTE: I should probably clarify. Biblical scholars are inevitably religious people who regard the Bible as being divinely inspired. Why should I interpret the Bible how they tell me too if they have specific, predefined assumptions that disallow objective analysis of the text?
if the Sun and Moon were in space long before the first day, that would mean that they predated the existence of light,That's the THIRD time that you bring this odd argument! I already explained that it is waste of your energy to attack things that I do not believe and I do not see in the bible. I do not try to reconcile it: this is my normal way of seeing it. However, you keep on promoting the view of your creationist strawmen-friends, just to break them down again.
How is it odd? You said, "Of course the sun and moon were in outer sipace long before this first 'day' ... " That means that they were in space before light was created, because God created light on the first day.
There's a whole world of difference between light being made and light reaching the Earth, as well. We don't say that black holes were created when we first observed them.Sure, because you are not causing them in any direct or indirect sense.
This has no bearing on the intuitively obvious distinction between creating something and observing it. Since a large chunk of your argument rests on assuming that these two terms are interchangeable, you might as well concede now. The Bible describes what God is doing, not what some mysterious observer is seeing. Any idiot can see that.
Light was ALWAYS on the surface of the Earth; the only difference is that billions of years ago, it came from surface activity.:-) Funny, your first original argument. I wonder if vulcanic eruptions are best known for their LIGHT, or for the darkness they bring over the land?
Don't be ridiculous. Are you saying that lava doesn't radiate light and heat?
Yes, he "proceeded to make" the stars after he'd already "proceeded to make" the Earth. What's the difference?You mean a. That he did NOT create them at that specific POINT of time.
So, you actually think that the author meant that God created the Earth after the stars? Why didn't he just SAY that? Why did he list the creation of the stars AFTER the creation of the Earth, on a SEPARATE day? If I interpreted the Bible as liberally as you, I could probably pull the laws of thermodynamics from the Book of Job.
By the way, don't confuse and misquote me: b. The Hebrew does NOT state that he "proceeded to make" the earth. The earth, IMHO, was just "created" (verse 1) c. The stars are created in verse 1 too. In their function as "luminaries"
For the last time, no they were not. The stars were created on the fourth day. The Bible EXPLICITLY STATES THIS. I'm not going to keep entertaining this correspondence if you keep ignoring the crystal-clear words on the page. I'm getting tired of your idiotic hairsplitting and semantics nitpicking.
"Light in a general sense" would be the EM spectrum, which exists in the form of everything from infrared radiation to gamma rays.Mh. Do you want to impress me by getting that technical? No average man would understand "LIGHT in a general sense" as "everything from infrared radiation to gamma rays."
No average man would understand why the planets have to come after the stars, either. Thus, your interpretations make no sense.
So, the source of light came into existence AFTER light? That's absurd.Yes! Sure, and every morning it's absurd, when you first see the sky getting brighter (LIGHT), and LATER you see the source of that light, the luminary (the sun).
Sophistry. You're implying that light was created, and then the Sun was created. And, no, I don't mean "observed," and neither does the Bible.
Why don't you read my "long and boring e-mail" again and TRY to see what I want to tell you, or maybe ask some side questions like "then how would you explain...." in stead of breaking down some strawmen?
So, it's a strawman to say that you can't recognize the difference between something's creation and its observation by humans? Genesis describes WHAT GOD IS DOING, not what MEN ARE SEEING. Creationists are complete morons, yet even THEY can recognize that.
You assume that the Bible MUST be absolutely consistent with observation becaiuse you assume that it is divinely inspired and infallible. This is circular reasoning.
You however assume a. that evolution is a fact, [which is unproovable].
It's an observed fact. We've seen evolution in the fossil record as simpler forms grow more complex, and we've seen it in the animal kingdom in the form of small adaptations which better suit an organism to live in its environment. Natives in the Australian Outback have developed more efficient water storage and hydration systems, enabling them to walk long distances in burning heat that you and me couldn't possibly do without resting and drinking more water. This is all covered in my Creationism vs. Evolution pages, which you obviously did not read. The theory part is just explaining the mechanisms which drive the process. You act as if the fact that evolution theory cannot be proven is some sort of stunning revelation. This is science; nothing is ever "proven," but evolutionary theory and its predictions have been shown to be consistent with observation.
I'm still waiting for YOUR justification of your reasoning process.
b. that your creationist friends have the most correct view on Genesis, namely "face value" [which is fallacious interpretting] Other opinions, like the things I say, are not open for debate.
You have no provided an adequate reason as to why I should interpret the Bible at anything beyond face value. That's how you go about interpreting literary works unless there is some reason not to. Why should I treat the Bible any differently from any other literary work?
c. you believe in an order in which things have happened [which is scientific]
ROTFLMAO! The Bible's accounts generate predictions through which we can test it. One of the predictions is that the stars should be YOUNGER than the Earth. Observation tells us that this is impossible, so the Bible is wrong. You're saying that, because I don't bend over backwards to reach this preordained conclusion that the Bible is infallible, I'M the one engaging in circular reasoning? Do you have ANY clue as to what true objectivity is?
EDITOR'S NOTE: Yet another reason the "argumentum ad anus" is a bad approach to debate. Somehow, my conclusion that the Bible is a fairy tale because it's completely inconsistent with reality is "circular reasoning and a falsification"! I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read that part. It still cracks me up to this day.
Furthermore, you NEVER addressed my criticism of your assumption that the Bible is infallible. You just spouted, "Uh ... you do the same thing!" with ignorant and weak justifications for that criticism.
Oh, I'm sorry, I get used to your style.
Then you should reevaluate what you "think" consistency is. Of course consistency can refer to a logical argument (which is self-consistency), but you cannot ignore inconsistency with observed fact if it exists.
Anyway, Since it is your wish that I avoid blowing this exchange up into long and boring E-mails but you consider my opinion not open for debate, you press me to come to the next point...
I consider your opinion ill-conceived and irrational.
My evaluation is objective. Yours is subjective.I did not see myself as "tryiing to rationalize the Bible with observation". I read it like I this since many years.
Don't be ridiculous. You didn't pick up the Bible when you were a kid and assume that a day was a period of a thousand years, did you? You didn't assume that the stars were created on the first day, even though it explicitly states that they were created on the fourth day, did you? Hell, if I told you that the planets did, in fact, come before the stars, you would have shouted about the Bible being divinely inspired.
OK, if you do not want to accept that there are other views on the bible than just that of your creationist friends, then give me an objective explanation of your view on evolution.
We have observed that organisms develop random mutations (the frequency with which these mutations occur is still being deduced by biologists), and that those organisms in a species that develop mutations which give them a survival advantage will become the dominant members of the species, while those organisms whose mutations give them a survival disadvantage will die out. This is all covered on my website. Try reading it. Or, even better, read a biology textbook or take a physical science course at your local community college.
Explain me how an EYE could evolve. I'm not able to grasp an analytical, objective method of how this could happen.
That's because you've never made any effort to study evolution. You just assume that you know what it is. Anyway, the eye probably started out as a light-sensitive block of cells on primitive organisms. As time went on, this block of cells developed mutations which made it more sensitive to different wavelengths of light, giving the organism which possessed it a survival advantage. What is so difficult to explain about it?
Furthermore, the eyeball is one of the best pieces of evidence for evolution. Or didn't you know that, when your eye first receives an image, it is upside-down? Your brain actually has to do extra work to flip the image around, which creates a blind spot and a needless inefficiency. This is because we inherited the flaw from an evolutionary ancestor, and the brain had to adapt to make up for it. If God "designed" it that way, he's a complete fucking moron.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is where I decided to end the discussion. He degenerated into your standard-issue, creationist, angrily ranting about how, since he lacks the mental capacity to understand evolution, it must be every bit as subjective and idiotic as his personal religious beliefs. This is the hallmark of creationist argumentation style. Rather than try and bring creationism up to the standards of science (which they can't), they try and bring evolution down to the level of a mere religious belief rather than being an observed, indisputable fact and widely-accepted, rock-solid and robust theory.
Tell me how science works. Make me an objective evaluation of evolutionary facts. "when you objectively evaluate something, you cannot have preordained conclusions, like EVOLUTION IS A FACT"
I cover all of this on my website. Perhaps you could bother to read it sometime. It's not an assumption to say that an observed natural process is a fact. Given that you have no idea how science works, are completely ignorant of evolutionary theory, and can't provide a justification for how you interpret the Bible (nor can you provide a reason as to why your interpretation is more valid that the creationists'), I don't see why I should keep this up. I've repeatedly drummed all this points into your head, but you just put up a giant wall of ignorance.