If your attention span is capable of replying suitably to this note, then you're patient enough to become an authority on the matter.
Seems to me folks with non-evolutionary views are not willing to spend much time beyond insisting their views are true and stomping away. You're already an exception so far.
The evolutions of physics and biology were systematized over centuries by thousands of honest folks who worked carefully and painstakingly in the field on detail. Thousands more have reviewed and criticized the system so constructed.
To give their work a fair trial, we should expect to take some significant amount of time to understand how they came to their conclusions...before we presume to dismiss those conclusions with a less substantial theory.
And one pillar of science states we cannot
understand a topic if we assign a skew to each bit of data which conflicts with our preconception.
Your point of view probably is shared by some, and so is mine, but numbers do not prove this kind of truth, unless an accurate science of the physical universe is established by a conventional political campaign with all the Lying arts that are practiced in those.
Usually, I would not be so annoyingly nitpicking if our topic were not science itself. But you're not asking for just grace here, are you? You're looking for scientific accuracy, I guess?
We can continue to consider our spiritual lives
as we have before, on a spiritual level, but maybe there is a slight shift of priorities that wold result from admitting more details and a longer time span in the process of arriving at today's world.
Four more points:
1) We must split hairs and be exact in science
when it is convenient, at least. When I asked you why someone would just hand over this information if they knew it, you did not answer the question specifically as I asked...do you agree? You employed a debating tactic; you answered the question yo wanted to answer...Right? Well, that's fine ...just clarifying that this type of statement is exactly what does not work as a scientific truth.
We dont' generally use conventional debating tactics to express precise scientific truths. Most conventional debating tactics are really part of the "lying arts" of _natural living. We all use personal volition to express our preferences of association, through subtle indirection and camoflage, but we do not claim it is universal truth.
2) If I tell you what I believe, I will be repeating
what I wrote before, which was ridiculed.
3) I would not be able to represent my views as being that of 'most evolutionists' and have not been elected to speak for them. I am interested in finding the results of your survey if you are going to survey "most evolutionists."
4) If you can give a suitable reply to this note which pleases me greatly on a scientific or humanitarian level and does not raise my hackles, then I will tell you my best guess about what was there before the beginning of conventional time as non-creationist science usually discusses it.
I'm going to post this now, errors and all.