What is a Christian?

[Solo]

I am with Adina. under strain of scientific rigor most religious discourse crumbles intelligent design and creation as a prime example. As a believer it is in the crumbling that faith plays a part.

And where do you place false scientific analysis in your order of what is truth?
How do you determine what is false scientific analysis before it is proven as such?
No such discourse exists whereby intelligent design and creation crumbles; in fact, the humanist model of evolution crumbles when true science addresses what actually occurs and has occurred in the natural world.

[Skyman]

And where do you place false scientific analysis in your order of what is truth?
How do you determine what is false scientific analysis before it is proven as such?
No such discourse exists whereby intelligent design and creation crumbles; in fact, the humanist model of evolution crumbles when true science addresses what actually occurs and has occurred in the natural world.

I posted in haste and have rephrased my words, however imagine a person who doesn't believe in the bible. To them Genesis is stupid. Many Christians who believe the bible is the word of God also don't believe in Genesis as a true account (lets not get into which version) of creation.

I am attempting to separate two belief structures (evolution and creationism) and straddle an argument without using the language of either (harder than you would think) but the are not mutually exclusive and yet to many the ideas of one preclude the ideas of the other. I cannot provide analysis to back up Evolution to a creationist nor can I convince a Darwinian that Creation has its merits.

I can pose questions like? why would God put dinosour fossils in the ground and not refer to them at all in the Bible?
Or If the universe started with the Big Bang, what caused the Bang?

The problem is that the Mind learns naturally to group things and discard the bits that don't fit. For example what is a chair?

It has four legs, a seat and a back and you are supposed to sit on it.\
So then three legged stool cannot be called a chair, yet most people would group it with the chairs (whilst ignoring the fact that it doesn't really fit) The more obtuse a concept, the more readily we ignore the bits that don't easily fit.