Replies

I also welcome other non-creationist theories of origins with a leg to stand on to be taught.

Careful here, DittoJed. You are assuming that "creationist theories [sic]" are solely bible based. This is certainly not the case, as each culture, each religion, each tribe, etc all have their own creation myths. I'd be happy to lay a few on you, some of which predate the Genesis account by several millennia.
Where do you get that I was assuming that???????

more reliable of Creationist sources. "more reliable" doesn't mean credible, however.
And it doesn't mean not credible either.

If there was no literal Adam with a literal fall, there is no need for a Savior and no Christianity.

So YOU say. With this one sentence I'd guess you just offended several million good Christians. This argument is not a good one to use, as I could show you a hundred examples from the first few books which if you actually took literally, you'd be in jail. And rightfully so.
I don't care who I have offended. They are wrong! Rationally, if you have no basis for the fall, and you have no curse, you have no need for a Savior. Some Christians may choose to live with an irrational inconsistency in their lives that lacks both biblical support and ideological foundation. I am not one of them.

That "evolutionary science" is infallible.

Hardly the case. On one hand creationists mock evolution science because it "corrects" itself, updates with the latest finds and knowledge, and is always open to change. On the other hand, creationists mock evolution for not being "open minded" to creationist thought. Can't have it both ways... and can't make this argument in the face of a belief system that is utterly unchangable (creationism) no matter what. Ever.
I can make the case that evolution presents its claims as infallible truths. It doesn't say "scientists believe (or even some scientists believe which is more accurate)" it says "such and such millions of years ago such and such happened." Evolution also never changes towards a younger planet, but molds its data to an older planet model and explains away anything that doesn't fit that mold. It rests on assumptions which it considers to be infallible, such as the ages in geological column and won't even consider the possibility of alternate theories which do not support old ages.

Creationism, I agree, is equally inflexible. That is because of ultimate authority. I have admitted ultimately it is a faith thing, but with that thought comes the truth that one need not try to contradict what God left as the record of how he did things. The fact that there is evidence that things are exactly as He said they should be, bolsters the argument but is not necessary for the faith. In other words, Creationism never claims to be fully objective, but Evolution does claim to be so. The evidence says Evolution's claims are wrong as this thread attests.

Where do you get that I was assuming [there is only one -- the Genesis account-- non evolutionary basis for the diversity of life on earth]???????

Fair enough. So you are comfortable with children (kids with impressionalbe minds) being equally taught the Navajo creation story, the islamic creation story, the Incan creation story, the Buddhist creation story, the Hindi creation story, the ... you get the point.

[Christians who don't take the bible literally] are wrong!

Whoa. As a non-christian, I'll defer this rebuttal to one of the may christians here. But I will say that despite your reticence to accept what tens of thousands of scientists and their studies assert, you're quick to judge other adherents to your same faith, based on faith? To borrow a phrase of yours, "I'm incredulous."

The fact that there is evidence that things are exactly as He said they should be

You keep mentioning the evidence thing but have yet to show us.

The evidence says Evolution's claims are wrong as this thread attests.

See what I mean? At any rate, God did some mighty strange things if he's responsible. Light years away stars, the fossil record, Pangea, the genomic record... I wouldn't go so far as to say God lied, but he sure is a trickster. Maybe the Nords have been right all along with that Loki character.

I can make the case that evolution presents its claims as infallible truths. It doesn't say "scientists believe (or even some scientists believe which is more accurate)" it says "such and such millions of years ago such and such happened."

Oh, come on... That's not a claim of "infallible truth", that's knowing that the reader will understand the claim to be "according to the best evidence and knowledge we currently have, unless and until something comes along to refine our knowledge, we have reason to believe that so many million years ago etc." Surely you understand that it would be unwieldy, to say the least, to put such a "disclaimer" the start of every declarative sentence which deals with any sort of scientific knowledge.

Evolution also never changes towards a younger planet,

Because there's no credible evidence that the Earth is younger, but plenty that it is as old as we believe it to be.

but molds its data to an older planet model

Because that's where the evidence leads us.

and explains away anything that doesn't fit that mold.

More accurately, it discards any suggested explanations that don't fit the data.

It rests on assumptions which it considers to be infallible, such as the ages in geological column

Please document that anyone considers the geologic column, or anything else in science, to be "infallible". As opposed, say, to extremely well supported by the evidence.

and won't even consider the possibility of alternate theories which do not support old ages.

Sure, we'll consider it. But it's going to have to explain *all* the evidence better than the current views. Good luck on that.