But nobody is suggesting that, are they. Current theories have very specific dates which are not gleaned from how long evolution should or should not take. This is meaningless.
To me, that is weak. It is like the big cop-out. If it can't be proven, just add more time.
Or course it would be weak, if anybody ever had proposed this. Luckily, smart people do these investigations, not you.
Take evolution for instance.
I am afraid of what I am going to see next.
This is the only science that requires a natural progression of physical matter.
What? No! Evolution does not need or require a progression. There is no progression in the Theory of Evolution. We only have organisms that are more fit for their environment.
And what do you mean "of physical matter".? Matter is the same now as it was billions of years ago. There has been no progression of physical matter. You don't understand any of this very well, do you.
Everything else has at it core a breaking down of matter over the long haul.
No. Nothing has matter "breaking down" over the long haul. Do you have any idea as to what you are writing? And even if you are trying to tie the 2LoT in here somewhere, this is not how it works. Not at all.
Still, it needs this eons of time, yet the fruit fly is still a fruit fly no matter how hard scientist try to make it something else (but that is just a lack of "know-how", not false science - sarcasm).
Only creationists can contradict themselves in the same sentence.
It just seems that this "atheistic only" origin science will not even objectively concede that, whether proven or not, the story in Genesis does cover the basic questions of origins.
First, it is not "atheistic only". It is evidence based. The problem, is that there is NO evidence for the supernatural including god, genesis, and the flood. Go get some evidence, and them we can talk. Until then, what do we have to talk about?
Second, you need to understand WHY a Scientist would "concede" (I think you really mean "to accept my assertion"). Again, evidence is what drives Science. No Scientist should EVER "concede" without evidence. And thats a good thing as otherwise we would still be praying for our car to run, using witch doctors for medicine, and howling at the moon at night.
It gives very plausible reasons for the way things are today.
Nope
And to me, the #1 proof IS the way things are today...the steady deterioration of everything physical (and moral).
Your own little story doesn't even jive with that. Think about it, people were so morally corrupt at one time that god killed all but eight people in the world. Boy, they had to be bad for that to happen. And destroyed two cities for that reason as well.
So where is all this smiting today if people are on some sort of moral decline? How come the world is a safer place than it has ever been? Although there is a long way to go, how come we now, with secular governments, come far closer to what jesus wanted in supporting the poor than at any time in history? There is less human misery, suffering, and misbehavior now than at any time in history. Every decade of human history screams that you are completely wrong.
If humans with self consciousness and pride were around more than 100000 years, we would not be around today. We are our own worst enemy.
It's not about pride and self consciousness, it's about numbers and technology. The Hawaiians fought wars of annihilation, but they didn't kill everybody because that is hard to do with spears. One hopes that our increased sense of morals can keep pace with the technology, people like you make that hard to happen.
It all lines up perfectly with the Bible. There is no need for any revisions or modifications...because it came from the Creator Himself AND physical origins was just a small side topic.
And how do you know this? What process do you use to differentiate this from other "creators"? It looks a lot more like you are just gullible.
