You're evasive hooberus. We are discussing Evolution or Creation; look at the subject of the thread! One requires discussion of various evolutionary mechanisms. The other requires discussion of various creative mechanisms.
Natural selection is an evolutionary mechanism. God and the process of Creation is a creative mechanism.
To avoid all responsibility of answering questions regarding the mechanism you are trying to support is presuppositionalist; you are effectively saying "there is a God, therefore that tree was created/that tree was created, therefore there is a God".
That's not science hooberus, it's not even rational; it's the 'there's a Chritmas present therefore Santa exists' routine.
If you refuse to defend your god in rational terms, it's not worth the wear on my finger-tips.
You apply a consistant double standard as this is the only way you can maintain your belief structure; cognotive dissonance. Look at this, you say;
"the theory of god" ... is not necessary to prove in oder for creation to be true
Yet if I said ;
'"the theory of evolution" ... is not necessary to prove in order for evolution to be true'
... you would object. You cannot be so blind to reason as to see that without proof of god the theory of creation is as unsupportable as the theory of evolution would be if there were no fossil record. Without proof it's just you and a bunch of old books saying it, none of which can be verified today.
You also distort the truth by implying that an article written by a creationist would be refused peer review by a mainstream magazine. I think you'll find it's more a question of creationist articles failing peer review, for the same reasons that your arguement is flawed; sloppy, unscientific, unrational, with two standards of evidence and utterly non-falsifiable. A theory that cannot be falsified is worthless... I theorise that you are a mutant space alien disguised as a human! SO well disguised it would be impossible to detect even under the closest scrutiny, and that you are beaming undetectable messages to the space mutant empire that will lead to Earth being invaded by 8' high mutant nymphomaniacs. You can't prove me wrong, so it must be right!
Even your truck metaphor is flawed; if people found its preserved remains after thousands of years, and there was a book claiming to have a contemporary account of the trucks manufacture, that said it was made in a way that was clearly not accurate based upon a thorough examination of the remains, that document would be discredited. Just like the Bible is discredited if compared to the physical evidence we have.
They would be able to determine details of it's manufacture... if more were discovered, they would be able to be classified according to their similarities and grouped together - the Fordosauruses, the Chevyosaurs, the flat-bed Plymouthes. DIfferent families could be seen to have the same features, obviously to allow them to compete in similar environments. Arguements would rage over the purpose of heated seats and cup-holders. People would have pet theories about the reason for the development of seatbelt and later, of airbags. The trucks in the older strata would be more primative than those in the younger strata. They would be able to determine, for example, that radios were a positive factor in 'selection' of trucks, and that certain colours were obviously an advantage in 'survival' terms, purely through the pattern of remains. 'Flying trucks' would be discovered, and the family connection to trucks shown (similar materials, similar powerplants, same 'food'). People would uncover the remains of a flying car (they do exist), and others would claim they were fakes!
You have, single-handedly provided a fantastic evolutionary metaphor, but don't know enough of biology to see that the manufacture process can quite accurately be an analogy of pregnancy, and that the development of technology proceeding the truck is a brilliant analogy for evoltionary development, and the process that leads some features to be popular is a good model for natural selection. You see life as by definition miraculous and of supernatural origin, rather than a rather clever way of chemicals passing on information. Unfortunately as you know very little of biology, you won't have experienced the feeling I did one day in biology class... the realisation that evolution DID make sense, and was quite sensible compared to the competing theories, even if it was obviously a theory in development.
Whatever, it's now dull doing this with you as you never answer questions properly and use irrational arguements with implicit double standards.
I'll get round to posting my three questions to creationists in a few weeks. I doubt very much, based on your tendancy to evade difficult questions, that I'll see your name on that thread.
