No, the real issue is that your 'more detailed process involving the physics God gave us the intellect to observe and understand' is a logical fallacy. First of all, naturalism is assumed and then the fallacy of affirming the consequent is invoked to 'support' evolution from observations. This eliminates all objectivity and empiricism from the 'process'. It's a philosophical choice.
Never mind that you don't understand that the information documented in a living organism is independent of the 'physics God gave us'. You know, like information recorded as ink on paper is independent of the 'physics God gave us'. Biological information is of the same quality.
"The 64 thousand dollar question is whether the "abracadabra process" is really a the more scientific process accelerated to a rate that you are not able to parse and comprehend. In that case we are both right."
Nope. The 'scientific process' is a logical fallacy by definition. It assumes naturalism and then defines all observation in terms of naturalism, this is a logical fallacy.
Well, I gotta give you credit. Unlike the others, while you have no use for science you at least have the stones to admit it. Other luddites like GGG dishonestly pretend to support "true" science, though nothing could be further from the truth.
Faith and reason are in harmony when God is understood as truth, beauty, goodness and universal reason, which are there for all human beings to grasp. Reason and Original Sin (the knowledge of the difference between good and evil) are both blessings and curses created by God and bestowed upon man. Both were given for a purpose. To fail acknowledge and exercise both is a rejection of God.
In an interview that was published in 1997, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) stated: Part of faith is also the patience of time. The theme you have just mentioned - Darwin, creation, the theory of evolution - is the subject of a dialog that is not yet finished and, within our present means, is probably also impossible to settle at the moment. Not that the problem of the six days is a particularly urgent issue between faith and modern scientific research into the origin of the world. For it is obvious even in the Bible that this is a theological framework and is not intended simply to recount the history of creation. In the Old Testament itself there are other accounts of creation. In the Book of Job and in the Wisdom literature we have creation narratives that make it clear that even then believers themselves did not think that the creation account was, so to speak, a photographic depiction of the process of creation. It only seeks to convey a glimpse of the essential truth, namely, that the world comes from the power of God and is his creation. How the process actually occurred is a wholly different question, which even the Bible itself leaves wide open. Conversely, I think that in great measure the theory of evolution has not gotten beyond hypotheses and is often mixed with almost mythical philosophies that have yet to be critically discussed.
Wow, so you finally came right out and said it. Good for you. One thing I've learned from reading your posts about logical fallacies and then researching them: the presence of a logical fallacy in an argument is not enough to prove either the premise or the conclusion wrong. So while I'm not convinced that all the alleged fallacies you cite really exist, I no longer care. In the face of the overwhelming evidence that the scientific process works, the objection "but it's based on a logical fallacy" seems puny indeed.
I can think of dozens of examples where the Bible states that the sun rose or the sun set or the moon and the planets rose or set. We all know, unless you are also heliocentric, that they didn't actually rise or set, they only appeared to based upon an incorrect understanding of the relationships between the bodies. This outwardly represents examples of logical fallacies. However, with scientific knowledge not available at the time, and in the context of understanding what was meant, not what was literally stated, we accept the scripture. How is Theistic Evolution any different?