Blade -
Besides it would take millions of years if the first evolution I spoke of had any kind of chance of working. We now know that those millions of years did not happen because of faulty assumptions. At least not by the evidence those of this thread have offered.
Peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals have shown that the millions of required years did, indeed, exist. If you cannot provide peer-reviewed scholarly articles proving the short life span of the Earth then you have nothing.
You talk a lot about how you feel that the pieces-parts of your Bible come together. But as it happens, the pieces-parts of peer-reviewed articles in geology, biology, astronomy, paleontology, archaeology, etc. DO come together to paint a much older picture of the Earth than your feeble myopic viewpoint produces. The 4.3 billion years that is the current estimated age of the Earth is well-accepted among scientific communities. You complain because there wasn't enough time for the species evolution to occur. But if you figure that mutation, adaptation, and other processes had literally hundreds of millions of years to occur, the odds tip in our favor.
Science follows a method of observation and experiment to explain something based on new data or new theories. Creation science follows a method of attempting to tear down established scientific facts and principles. If you read an article that tries to tear down some law or principle and does not offer an equally good alternative that fits the facts, then the article is often a pile of junk. Let me also point out that a "peer reviewed" article usually does not mean that some bishop somewhere thinks the article is right - unless the bishop ALSO has a degree in some useful field.
Take, for example, Fr. Lemaitre, the college mathematician and Jesuit priest who devised the basics of the first viewpoint on the Big Bang theory. He was well aware of the Biblical admonitions to STUDY that which God had created. He studied them. Came up with the BB theory.
OK, so we study the stars, because Genesis says God created them. We have a name for the study - astronomy - but we are still studying the things your Bible tells us God has made. Then there are the animals and plants (Zoology and Botany). Again, you are admonished to study that which God has made. We have names for the study, but does that invalidate the results of the study? God supposedly made the Earth, so when we study its structure, does it matter that we call that study Geology?
According to your Bible, we were given dominion over the Earth, its plants, and its animals, and were told to study them. So WHY should we ignore what we find when we were told to look in the first place? That is one of many questions that religious folks cannot answer adequately for me.
Now, when we study those topics and develop a method of rigorously validating those results, and we then find a way to disseminate the results via technical journals, tell me where we have gone wrong. WHY do you not accept that the tech journals are merely a formalized way of studying and disseminating that which we have learned? And why do you not realize that religious journals have a hidden (but not very well hidden) agenda?
