[donh]

I understand that taking a superior attitude is a helpful tactic when you're playing a bust hand.

I presented irrefutable Biblical data that God created Adam and Eve as mature adults.

All you have "irrefutably proved" is that the bible says what it says, in the particular places you chose to look.

If you refuse to see it, how can I trust your judgment regarding the data associated with the Theory of Evolution?

Well, fortunately, when it comes to science, we don't treat what amounts to 3-card-monti with the meaning of words and phrases as serious evidence, we look at tangible, material evidence, and invite anyone who takes the time and trouble to seriously look, to draw their own conclusions.

[TalonDJ]

we look at tangible, material evidence, and invite anyone who takes the time and trouble to seriously look, to draw their own conclusions.

and then laugh at them and call them stupid mystics if they don't reach our conclusion. /sarc

[bondserv]

Ok.

My question to you is; considering the Biblical text I posted to you, can you understand why I would take the position I have taken?

P.S. The Biblical narrative falls under the evidenciary realm of provability one might find in a courtroom. If this method of examination is not valid, we have greater problems than debating origins. Similarly to Evolutionary Theory, archaeologically "scientific" data has been collected to reinforce Biblical accuracy. This in my opinion puts these two fields of study in the same category for provability, as opposed to something that can be experimentally proven in a lab [Knowing about early life, being highly circumstantial evidence for it's lack of observers (other than God of course)].

Truth always comes down to accurately understanding information. The closer to first hand observation we have to the data, the more convinced we become.

[Elsie]

... to draw their own conclusions.

And if it don't jive with the Truly Wise Ones results, we pile on and call you stupid and other highly descriptive stuff, too!

-- EvoGuy