[aruanan]

But that is dishonest. If we are to accept creation as the method by which life appeared on Earth and exists in the variety that we see, then we must accept the Biblical version of creation, not some version that has had elements of evolution mixed into it. So, since for the purpose of the discussion, I put myself into the position of a scientist trying to design my research on the basis of creation "theory", I'm making assumptions based on creation as the Bible describes it. And the Biblical account of creation makes no mention of any adaptive process or need for one.

Again, you're crafting an ad hoc situation to fit a polemical need. The Biblical account also makes no mention of blood circulation or gills versus lungs versus book lungs as means of oxygenation or oxygen or chlorophyll, but that doesn't mean the writer was denying the possibility of any of these existing.

[exDemMom]

Again, you're crafting an ad hoc situation to fit a polemical need. The Biblical account also makes no mention of blood circulation or gills versus lungs versus book lungs as means of oxygenation or oxygen or chlorophyll, but that doesn't mean the writer was denying the possibility of any of these existing.

As a scientist, if I am going to try to make predictions based on creation, rather than evolution, I must use, as my starting point, creation as it is described in the Bible. Nothing else. And the hypotheses I would develop using creation as set forth in the Bible would be vastly different than those I develop based on evolutionary theory. As would the experimental design needed to test them.

What I'm trying to get at is that the Bible is not a scientific text, and trying to use it as a basis for scientific inquiry is ludicrous. Conversely, a scientific text is not a religious document, and trying to use science as a basis for religious study is equally ludicrous.