Good, I was hoping you would say something to that effect. Now your thinking outside your comfort zone. Old Earth/Macroevolution does not meet Scientific Method:
1. OBSERVATION
2. EXPERIMENTATION
3. REPRODUCTION
4. FALSIFICATION
Since you subscribe to the Scientific Method you cannot take Old Earth/Macroevolution as fact.
To believe Old Earth/Macroevolution is to have faith in Science and Scientist. To overlook all the flaws. It is to have faith in the powers of man to know all, though he does not know what he does not know.
Nope. I was afraid of that, you operate on 'faith' so you assume everyone else does.
As I said -- I have analyzed the evidence myself, using the basic scientific method, and have found the most likely answer to be an old earth with macroevolution.
I don't say, "This is certainly true and I have faith that it is true". I say, "this evidence I analyze seems to suggest this, I don't know all the details and I could be wrong, but that is the most likely answer given the facts at hand."
No 'faith'. No absolute statements that must be true. Pure, simple analysis. There are absolutely holes in the theories. There are holes in gravitational theory, also.
Doesn't mean there is no gravity, tho. Just that our understanding of the mechanism is still growing.
You're not even on the same page as I am. You don't even understand how I think, or what I'm saying. Perhaps that's why you're so wrong in your assessment?
If you don't even hear me, then you can't really disagree with me.