[betty boop]

To you it seems that the “creative Word of God” is necessarily a miraculous mechanism indescribable by physical means or scientific theory. Our main point of contention it seems is that I fully believe the “creative Word of God” is not necessarily miraculous and IS describable (demonstrably in several cases I have outlined) by physical means.

Yep. It's pretty miraculous all right! It positively does not reduce to any physical description whatsoever. :^)

You're right about our "main point of contention." I certainly don't agree with you here: "'The creative Word of God' is not necessarily miraculous and IS describable (demonstrably in several cases I have outlined) by physical means."

All you can "demonstrate" by such physical means is a "reduction" of God to the "size" of allmendream and his personal preferences....

[FourtySeven]

How does describing something physically reduce the Word of God in creation?

Do I understand you correctly?

[allmendream]

So was my creation “from dust” less literal than the creation of Adam “from dust”?

If I can demonstrate that I was also formed through cellular processes involving DNA does that reduce God in any way shape or form?

Is it possible that I was BOTH created by God - AND created through physical means that God put into place?

If I can demonstrate the physical means - does that - in your mind - reduce the role of God?

If so I understand your reflexive rejection of the scientific method, scientific theory, and the teaching of science.

Heck, you think death threats and raving loonyness is a RATIONAL response to the presentation of a scientific theory!

That right there is pretty funny!!!