[exDemMom]

As I said before, if you want to refute the TOE, you MUST be as familiar with it as any scientist. So far, you have not demonstrated any familiarity with the theory. It is only by being absolutely familiar with it, and understanding it completely, that you can come up with an alternate explanation of the facts. Unless the Bible is a comprehensive scientific resource, you can't refute the TOE simply by quoting from the Bible.

I am up close and personal with a liberal evolutionists researcher and there is nothing more in this world he despises more is one who believes in God and worse yet anyone who has the nerve to question his TOE.

Being an atheist and being a scientist are two completely different issues. Maybe he tries to use science to justify (and try to force on you) his atheistic beliefs, but that only makes him no different than the literal creationists who try to use the Bible to justify not understanding or knowing science while they try to stamp out science education. Nothing about choosing a career in science precludes having religious faith; nothing about being a faithful Christian (or any religion) precludes having a career in science. I myself have seen life scientists with decades of research experience attending church. And yes, they accept the TOE. There's too much evidence at this point not to.

[connectthedots]

Being an atheist and being a scientist are two completely different issues.

If that is the case, you should have no problem with the proposition that Christianity and Intelligent Design are two completely different issues.

[Tribune7]

I myself have seen life scientists with decades of research experience attending church. And yes, they accept the TOE. There's too much evidence at this point not to.

Do either of you know any scientists who don't accept the TOE as the comprehensive explanation for biodiversity?