[Shadowfax]

"Yes, but God is not a testable theory."

Neither is evolution. In fact, evolution is not observable, reproducible, or predictive in nature, arguments that deliberately confuse macro-evolution and micro-evolution (or adaptation) to the contrary. Therefore, by definition, the Theory of Evolution is not valid science. It's the creation myth of atheists and is being propped up by a group of scientists that are terrified that someone's going to start paying attention to that man behind the curtain.

[narby]

evolution is not observable, reproducible, or predictive in nature, arguments that deliberately confuse macro-evolution and micro-evolution (or adaptation) to the contrary.

When "creation scientists" describe the mechanism that prevents so called "micro" evolution from continuing on to become "macro" evolution, let me know.

by definition, the Theory of Evolution is not valid science. It's the creation myth of atheists

You do realize that a great many Christians, not the least of which the entive Catholic Church, have acknowledged there is no conflict between the Bible and evolution?

You might have some doctrinal problems with Catholics, but to slander them as "athiests" because they accept evolution is probably a bit much.

[staytrue]

"Yes, but God is not a testable theory." Neither is evolution.

Evolution is not based on God, allah, buddah, apollo, athena or any one else's supernatural being. Not being based on a supernatural being does make it more scientific than any theory based on a supernatural being.