I'd appreciate it if you read my posts more carefully and less casually. I pointed out your mention of "while the chip remained.." not because I disagreed with its content, but because you had a minor oversight in your spelling like I had a minor oversight say we diverged from chimps.
I don't think established science says there was 6 million years to account for the 1%. As far as I know, it is more around 1-2 million.
As I said before, you did not get my argument. I am not for replacing the sci meth with superstition and "God did it so let's not research it." I am interested in undercutting some ridiculous underlying philosophies in the interpretation of scientific data. So when you multiply all the improbable events that, say, the human brain could have evolved give ABCDEF factors, you don't then say "well, that is ridiculously unlikely--but since there is no God then it must be the best explaination." That is philosophy.
Remember, I don't want the scientific method changed; I want the interpretation of data to reflect probability and the possibility that there could be a God.
This statement is completely meaningless. Since there's no definition of god other than "some undefined but omnipotent force", how do you introduce that into a credible scientific discussion?:
"Anything we don't understand == Maybe God Did It.
All this stuff we seem to understand pretty well == God (for some reason) didn't do it.
Unless he did and is just messing with us."