Nope, I just didn't respond in the manner you so desperately require.
"Of course I answered your question. You just don't like the answer. You asked, what biological systems could NOT have been created by God? I answered: none. But let's get rid of the double negatives and say this directly:"
And of course I answered your question. You just don't like the answer.
"God not only could have, but DID create all biological systems, and every other system you might want to mention. Whether He did it in six seconds, or six days, or six billion years is a matter for study and analysis."
No it isn't. We already know the answer. 6 days about 6,000 years ago. There is no observation that invalidates this proposal, only philosophically naturalistic interpretations that claim to do so. Only someone who puts the word of man above the Word of God thinks it's 'a matter for study and analysis'.
"And, we have two basic sources for information on the ages of things: the Bible, which says God did everything in six days, and science, which says it took billions of years."
Stop personifying a method. Methods say absolutely nothing. Only men speak and they do so based on their philosophical beliefs.
"So, which are we to believe? Well, to me it's pretty simple: if God did it in six days, He obviously wanted to make things look like it took billions of years. Why? I have no real idea, could only speculate. Perhaps God wishes to stretch our minds beyond the confines of the immediate here and now?"
No, he obviously didn't want to make things look like it took billions of years. That's an old pagan idea that has become the dogma of philosophical naturalism. Nothing can deviate from that dogma or the 'men' will say it isn't 'science'. The method still works just fine.
"But I want to switch to an even more important point, which needs to be stressed and stressed again in all these debates:"
Nope. You already missed the most important point. That's why you can't see your error.
"In no way, shape or form is SCIENCE to be considered "ULTIMATE TRUTH." It's not, never was, never will be. "Science" is simply one way -- the scientific method -- not the only way, of looking at reality."
That's correct. The men practicing science have absolutely no interest in truth. Their interest is in creating just-so stories based on their 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism.
"Instead, by definition, science is a highly disciplined way of looking for NATURAL explanations of PHYSICAL-MATERIAL occurrences. So, when you introduce the Supernatural, then by definition, it's no longer science, but now theology."
Except in the case of certain 'origins' theories like evolution, in which science commits the fallacy of assuming philosophical naturalism as the basis for the theory. When you introduce philosophy (either supernatural or natural), then by definition, it's no longer science, but philosophy.
"Such nonsense! In fact, those dates ARE what science says about ages of the Universe, etc. Of course, you are not theologically required to believe those dates, but you cannot claim your disbelief is SCIENTIFICALLY based, because that's a pure premeditated lie."
Such nonsense! You simply commit the same error as before, personifying a method and ignoring the 'a priori' philosophical beliefs of practitioners. 'Science' *says* NOTHING because it is a method and it's practitioners must enter into fallacy before making philosophical statements. You are not philosophically required to believe that, but you cannot claim your disbelief is SCIENTIFICALLY based, because that a pure premeditated lie.
"Here's the truth: science is what it is, and you are not it. You represent theology trying to impose yourself on science, an attempt which, if successful, then by definition, must destroy science."
Here's the truth: science is what is it, and you are not it. You represent philosophical naturalism trying to hide behind a method and pretend that the method 'speaks'. Methods cannot be personified, people do that based on their 'a priori' beliefs. Science cannot be 'destroyed', only the philosophical foundation exposed for what it is.
"Here's the truth: when you deny the ages that science reports, then you also deny the sciences which produced those ages. Those sciences include everything from biology to geology, physics, astronomy, to chemistry and many more. So, you cannot deny evolution without also denying virtually ALL of science. And that's a fact."
Here's the truth: when you claim that 'science' reports ages, you personify a method and ignore the 'a priori' assumptions of the adherents. And to claim that one must deny all of the method for failing to accept the philosophy is a fallacy, not a fact.
I don't "desperately require" anything, but always hope to see honest discussion. So far, you disappoint me.
"No, he obviously didn't want to make things look like it took billions of years. That's an old pagan idea that has become the dogma of philosophical naturalism. Nothing can deviate from that dogma or the 'men' will say it isn't 'science'. The method still works just fine. "
The fact is, there are dozens of scientific methods for establishing the ages of ancient materials, including radiometric dating. Every one of these methods points to older ages than your 6,000 years.
There is not even one scientific method which says the earth is only 6,000 years old.
In fact, there's only one source for a young earth creation: the Bible.
And whatever else it is, the Bible has never been proved in any way scientific. Indeed, by definition of the words, it cannot be, since "science" at core MEANS natural explanations for physical occurrences. The Bible is all about the Supernatural.
That's one reason science just can't explain EVERYthing. As soon as some occurrence is beyond the realm of the natural world (i.e., a miracle), it has no scientific explanation, because science doesn't deal with miracles.
Bottom line: your theological arguments are not scientific, no matter how often you claim they are. If you WISH to be scientific, then you will have to speak the language and ideas of science, and of SCIENTISTS.
For example, you could answer a simple scientific question: what exactly is "micro-evolution" and how does it differ from "macro-evolution."