Creationists, please provide evidence

[newhope101]

Sorry Jarofthought, Eucaryotic creature evolution is as insecure as any other area,

Wiki: However, in the same year (2005), doubts were expressed as to whether some of these supergroups were monophyletic, particularly the Chromalveolata,[12] and a review in 2006 noted the lack of evidence for several of the supposed six supergroups.[13]
As of 2010[update], there appears to be a consensus that the six supergroup model does not reflect the phylogeny of the eukaryotes, although there is less agreement as to the model which should replace it. Molecular phylogenetic evidence suggests that the Chromalveolata split into two groups:
_________________

Autodidact Quote: I'm not looking for an example. I'm looking for a definition. Is it a species, a genus, a family, or something else? Haven't I asked you this question a few times? Why can't you just answer it?

Well Pegg after the pages and pages of clarification we have posted some are still on about it.
____________________

9 10ths penguin Quote "When all this is put together, we get plate tectonics and all the implications that spring from it, including the idea that mountain ranges are places where the land has been driven upward by the horizontal motion of the plates (which, BTW, still happens at a measurable rate). This implies that what is now a mountain top might've once been underwater... and when we go to the tops of mountains, guess what we sometimes find: seashells! Just as predicted.
If there was a world wide flood over the past 5,000 years we'd find sea shells on mountains just a predicted, also.

If God created humans one would expect to find genomic evidence of 2 ancestors in all sexually replicating creatures. I have already posted info from various genome projects that find exactly that, just as predicted. Humans included. That evidence along with the flaws in radiometric and genomic dating (evidence already posted), is excellent evidence of creation.

If God created asexual creatures one would predict that genome mapping would indicate lineage to an individual creature. It does. Evidence already provided.

If God created life one would predict that humans cannot create life. Just as predicted, despite all the advances in science this holy grail escapes them, as predicted.

If God created the first kind of every creature and gave them huge array of genetic diversity to multiply and fill the earth one would predict scientists would have a great deal of trouble linking the lineages. As predicted they do. Fossil evidence does not line up with phylogenic data. Evidence has been provided.

If God created all life one would expect to see some proof that the creation was created by one mind. We share high percentages of genes with the most simplest creatures. Gods signature is throughout his creation as predicted. Evidence previously provided.

If God created every 'kind' using the same template for life one could predict many creatures may have useless genes that God did not wish to express. We do, as predicted. The sponge and other evidence provided.

Finally if creation was true one may predict the evidence would speak for itself and fit simply into some creative model. It does. If one kind evolved into another kind one would expect the evidence to speak for itself and simply fit in with ToE models. They do not. Rather it takes a myriad of hypothesis to make it fit (and there are still inconsistencies), particularly now that evolutionary science has moved away from falable human classifications and put some proper scientific methods behind it.

Data provides the facts. Hypothesis is about how one interprets data.

 

[PolyHedral]

If God created all life one would expect to see some proof that the creation was created by one mind.

Why? .

 

[Autodidact]

_________________

Autodidact Quote: I'm not looking for an example. I'm looking for a definition. Is it a species, a genus, a family, or something else? Haven't I asked you this question a few times? Why can't you just answer it?

Well Pegg after the pages and pages of clarification we have posted some are still on about it.
____________________

Yes, it is amazing how long some people can evade and prevaricate. I'll go on about it as long as you insist on basing your position on the term, and you have failed to define it.

So, what is a kind?

If God created humans one would expect to find genomic evidence of 2 ancestors in all sexually replicating creatures. I have already posted info from various genome projects that find exactly that, just as predicted. Humans included. That evidence along with the flaws in radiometric and genomic dating (evidence already posted), is excellent evidence of creation.

If God created asexual creatures one would predict that genome mapping would indicate lineage to an individual creature. It does. Evidence already provided.

If God created life one would predict that humans cannot create life. Just as predicted, despite all the advances in science this holy grail escapes them, as predicted.

If God created the first kind of every creature and gave them huge array of genetic diversity to multiply and fill the earth one would predict scientists would have a great deal of trouble linking the lineages. As predicted they do. Fossil evidence does not line up with phylogenic data. Evidence has been provided.

If God created all life one would expect to see some proof that the creation was created by one mind. We share high percentages of genes with the most simplest creatures. Gods signature is throughout his creation as predicted. Evidence previously provided.

If God created every 'kind' using the same template for life one could predict many creatures may have useless genes that God did not wish to express. We do, as predicted. The sponge and other evidence provided.

Finally if creation was true one may predict the evidence would speak for itself and fit simply into some creative model. It does. If one kind evolved into another kind one would expect the evidence to speak for itself and simply fit in with ToE models. They do not. Rather it takes a myriad of hypothesis to make it fit, particularly now that evolutionary science has moved away from falable human classifications and put some proper scientific methods behind it.

Data provides the facts. Hypothesis is about how one interprets data.[/quote]

HOW. HOW. HOW. NOT WHO, HOW.
Do you have any idea how tired I am of saying this? We're not arguing about whether God created all things, we're assuming that, and arguing about HOW. What is your hypothesis for HOW God created all living creatures?

How many times have I asked you, newhope?

 

[McBell]

Finally if creation was true one may predict the evidence would speak for itself and fit simply into some creative model. It does.

Only if one discards the evidence that doesn't.

Of course you have not yet presented any evidence for creation.
When do you think you will start with that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there was a world wide flood over the past 5,000 years we'd find sea shells on mountains just a predicted, also.

Great - but how do you deal with the other evidence without plate tectonics? How do you account for the fact that in terms of geology, the Avalon Peninsula is more like western Africa than it is like the rest of Newfoundland? How do you account for the fact that the crystal direction of igneous rock on every continent and on the sea floor perfectly aligns with the movement of the magnetic pole over time... but only if you adjust for the motion of tectonic plates over time? Do you just wave your hands and dismiss it as part of "God's mystery"?

If God created humans one would expect to find genomic evidence of 2 ancestors in all sexually replicating creatures. I have already posted info from various genome projects that find exactly that, just as predicted. Humans included. That evidence along with the flaws in radiometric and genomic dating (evidence already posted), is excellent evidence of creation.

However you compress the timescale, "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosomal Noah" didn't live at the same time.

Also (just to take a Devil's Advocate position for a moment), if we go by a literal interpretation of Noah's flood, then there's a genetic bottleneck long after the original creation... however it happened. This would've wiped out whatever genetic variation existed beforehand. God could've created a million humans originally and this wouldn't affect the genetics we see today, because all but one family of them wouldn't be represented in modern humans.

IOW, if the Bible is correct, then the genetics of modern humans would only point to the Flood bottleneck, not anything before.

However, having a genetic bottleneck of a single male and a single female does not necessarily mean that these were the only individuals living at the time. Lineages do die out occasionally.

If God created asexual creatures one would predict that genome mapping would indicate lineage to an individual creature. It does. Evidence already provided.

I think I missed that, then.

If God created life one would predict that humans cannot create life. Just as predicted, despite all the advances in science this holy grail escapes them, as predicted.

This doesn't work - the one thing doesn't have anything to do with the other.

If God created the first kind of every creature and gave them huge array of genetic diversity to multiply and fill the earth one would predict scientists would have a great deal of trouble linking the lineages. As predicted they do.

That's not correct.

Fossil evidence does not line up with phylogenic data. Evidence has been provided.

If you could point me to where this evidence is, I'd appreciate it, because I don't think that your claim is correct.

If God created all life one would expect to see some proof that the creation was created by one mind. We share high percentages of genes with the most simplest creatures Gods signature is throughout his creation as predicted. Evidence previously provided.

Except commonality between organisms is also a prediction of common descent by evolution. It's common to both, so it's not a proper basis for making a distinction between them.

If God created every 'kind' using the same template for life one could predict many creatures may have useless genes that God did not wish to express. We do, as predicted. The sponge and other evidence provided.

I don't think this is an actual prediction of the notion of the "kind". Rather, I think you're just reverse-engineering a story to account for the discovery of "junk" DNA. IOW, it's a post-diction, not a prediction, and therefore doesn't count.

Finally if creation was true one may predict the evidence would speak for itself and fit simply into some creative model. It does.

What do you mean by "creative model"?

If one kind evolved into another kind one would expect the evidence to speak for itself and simply fit in with ToE models. They do not. Rather it takes a myriad of hypothesis to make it fit, particularly now that evolutionary science has moved away from falable human classifications and put some proper scientific methods behind it.

Data provides the facts. Hypothesis is about how one interprets data.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Can you re-phrase?

 

[newhope101]

Mestemia Quote: Only if one discards the evidence that doesn't.
Of course you have not yet presented any evidence for creation.
When do you think you will start with that?

I Just did, in short, sum up the evidence in your replied to post. It clearly shows how creationist predictions are supported by the evidnece. You now actually have to read the thread to find the evidence. In 10,000 words it aint all gonna fit in one post. Clearly, Pegg and I have posted evidence, which you refute with your evidence that can all again be refuted with equally credentialed research. Again it won't fit in one reply. You will actually have to stop squarking for a moment and read the darn thing.

Like wise evolutionists discard the evidence that does not fit, with the expectation there will be clarification with more data. Or are you suggesting creationist should have a solid, undisputed scientific model ready, using today's falable dating methods, and that perhpas someone here is a Nobel prize candidate. Rather, it's about giving evidence weight and seeking to clarify if the data supports creation, Toe or perhaps both.

Listen lovey, you evolutionists have been playing around with this theory for yonks and still cannot get it together despite hundreds, if not thousands, of researhers working on it. The researchers get the data. It's the hypothesis that is scewed to ToE. However strip the convoluted hypothesis out of the data and just look at what the data is saying..it simply fits in with creation.

Prior to the recent advances in genomic testing your fossils and accompanying hypothesis was your evidence and it appeared solid and dificult to refute. However with the data that has come from recent genomic research, it appears, the evidnece for creation is mounting while the same evidence is resulting in more questions and theories for ToE, than giving answers.

This is clearly not the case for the creationist thinking. Rather as expected, proper scientific methods are answering many creative questions without dilemma.

We have shown how recent data supports creative modeling. We have shown how much of your evidence is not evidence at all.... and like all good captains I expect you all to stay on board and go down with the ship as more evidence comes to light.

 

[PolyHedral]

Or are you suggesting creationist should have a solid, undisputed scientific model ready, using today's falable dating methods,

I think that is what he's suggesting, yes. Nobody has been able to provide a model of creation more detailed than "God did it"

recent genomic research

I'm fairly sure that any conclusions drawn from genetics research automatically assume evolution. Otherwise, you don't have any reasoning.

 

[Autodidact]

Mestemia Quote: Only if one discards the evidence that doesn't.
Of course you have not yet presented any evidence for creation.
When do you think you will start with that?

I Just did, in short, sum up the evidence in your replied to post. It clearly shows how creationist predictions are supported by the evidnece. You now actually have to read the thread to find the evidence. In 10,000 words it aint all gonna fit in one post. Clearly, Pegg and I have posted evidence, which you refute with your evidence that can all again be refuted with equally credentialed research. Again it won't fit in one reply. You will actually have to stop squarking for a moment and read the darn thing.

Like wise evolutionists discard the evidence that does not fit, with the expectation there will be clarification with more data. Or are you suggesting creationist should have a solid, undisputed scientific model ready, using today's falable dating methods, and that perhpas someone here is a Nobel prize candidate. Rather, it's about giving evidence weight and seeking to clarify if the data supports creation, Toe or perhaps both.

Listen lovey, you evolutionists have been playing around with this theory for yonks and still cannot get it together despite hundreds, if not thousands, of researhers working on it. The researchers get the data. It's the hypothesis that is scewed to ToE. However strip the convoluted hypothesis out of the data and just look at what the data is saying..it simply fits in with creation.

Prior to the recent advances in genomic testing your fossils and accompanying hypothesis was your evidence and it appeared solid and dificult to refute. However with the data that has come from recent genomic research, it appears, the evidnece for creation is mounting while the same evidence is resulting in more questions and theories for ToE, than giving answers.

This is clearly not the case for the creationist thinking. Rather as expected, proper scientific methods are answering many creative questions without dilemma.

We have shown how recent data supports creative modeling. We have shown how much of your evidence is not evidence at all.... and like all good captains I expect you all to stay on board and go down with the ship as more evidence comes to light.

If you don't state a hypothesis, how can you say whether the evidence would support or refute it? The first step is to state a hypothesis. And remember, not WHO, but HOW. Do you plan to ever tell us what your "creative model" is? Because until you do, there's no point in the rest of what you post to support it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If God created life one would predict that humans cannot create life. Just as predicted, despite all the advances in science this holy grail escapes them, as predicted.

This got me to thinking more: I don't know if you realized it, but your statement implies something: if "God created life" implies that humans cannot create life, then humans creating life would imply that God did not create life.

So... are you willing to put your money on this? If, at some point in the future, humans did create some new form of life from non-life, would you concede that God did not create life?

 

[Noaidi]

Good point, Penguin. Would people 100 years ago have believed a claim that we would put people on the moon?

Just becuase we can't do x now doesn't mean that x can't be done in the future. All too often we hear that because science can't currently do such-and-such, then it proves the existence of a deity.

As science advances and we accomplish more, the 'miraculous achievements' of a deity seem to be pushed further and further into a box marked 'redundant'.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I Just did, in short, sum up the evidence in your replied to post. It clearly shows how creationist predictions are supported by the evidnece. You now actually have to read the thread to find the evidence. In 10,000 words it aint all gonna fit in one post. Clearly, Pegg and I have posted evidence, which you refute with your evidence that can all again be refuted with equally credentialed research. Again it won't fit in one reply. You will actually have to stop squarking for a moment and read the darn thing.

Neither of you have posted any evidence whatsoever of creation, because no such evidence exists.

Like wise evolutionists discard the evidence that does not fit, with the expectation there will be clarification with more data. Or are you suggesting creationist should have a solid, undisputed scientific model ready, using today's falable dating methods, and that perhpas someone here is a Nobel prize candidate. Rather, it's about giving evidence weight and seeking to clarify if the data supports creation, Toe or perhaps both.

Once again, the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution. Not a single piece of evidence in all existence supports creationism.

If I'm wrong, present some evidence.

Listen lovey, you evolutionists have been playing around with this theory for yonks and still cannot get it together despite hundreds, if not thousands, of researhers working on it.

What utter nonsense. Evolution is the most widely accepted and evidenced theory in modern science and the cornerstone of modern biology. It's effectiveness as a science spans practically all fields, from genetics to medicine and even geology.

The researchers get the data. It's the hypothesis that is scewed to ToE. However strip the convoluted hypothesis out of the data and just look at what the data is saying..it simply fits in with creation.

That is another load of nonsense. Since there is no such thing as a creation theory or a testable creationist hypothesis how can any evidence be said to support it?

Prior to the recent advances in genomic testing your fossils and accompanying hypothesis was your evidence and it appeared solid and dificult to refute. However with the data that has come from recent genomic research, it appears, the evidnece for creation is mounting while the same evidence is resulting in more questions and theories for ToE, than giving answers.

That is a bald-faced lie. Genetics provides an even better groundwork of evidence for evolution than the fossils do, and there has, once again, never been any genetic evidence that supports creationism. Stop talking nonsense.

This is clearly not the case for the creationist thinking. Rather as expected, proper scientific methods are answering many creative questions without dilemma.

Such as...?

We have shown how recent data supports creative modeling. We have shown how much of your evidence is not evidence at all.... and like all good captains I expect you all to stay on board and go down with the ship as more evidence comes to light.

Again, provide examples. So far, all you've presented is "it could have been designed", but you have yet to show any evidence that anything actually was designed.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Sorry Jarofthought, Eucaryotic creature evolution is as insecure as any other area,

Wiki: However, in the same year (2005), doubts were expressed as to whether some of these supergroups were monophyletic, particularly the Chromalveolata, and a review in 2006 noted the lack of evidence for several of the supposed six supergroups.

*Sigh*

Again, and for the n'th time, the details will be modified as new evidence surfaces, and so it is with the eukaryote supergroups. No-one is saying that the last word on Evolution has been said, nor is it likely to be in a long time. This is how science progresses. It is the same with the Theory of Gravity, the Atomic Theory and all the other scientific theories we have. This is a sign of strength, which I know must seems strange for a religious person who is hung up on supposedly unchanging scriptures, but none of this changes the fact of Evolution. I'm sorry, but it will not suffice as an argument to point at something that science changed it's mind about. That happens all the time and we are continually expanding our knowledge of the world in which we find ourselves, and for that to happen, we must shun dogmatism.

However, what you are proposing is a concept that has no evidence, no hypothesis and cannot, by any stretch of the word, be considered science. Now, we have asked you to provide evidence. We have asked you to provide a hypothesis. And so far, none is forthcoming. We have even allowed you to remove the biggest hurdle of all, the one about providing evidence for god, and yet you still come up empty.

I suggest you stop with the shell-game and either admit you don't have neither hypothesis nor evidence, or start providing some.

 

[McBell]

I suggest you stop with the shell-game and either admit you don't have neither hypothesis nor evidence, or start providing some.

She is not going to stop the shell game.
It is all creationism has.

If she had any evidence she would have presented it long before now.
ANd what would really be sad is if she honestly thinks that she has presented "evidence" for creation.

 

[MW0082]

I am sorry, but I have to ask how can the idea of creationism be taken seriously anymore? Has it not been proven wrong in two fold:

1) The bible is wrong about the age of the Earth.
2) It was also wrong about the Earth being the center of the Universe.

If there was a god who created all we know and have in this Universe, would it not know when and where it was created when passing along his words to prophets?

To me, I need no more evidence or thoughts from the religous groups. these are the things they believe, and we know for a fact to be wrong. Creationism at this point is impossible.

If the bible is wrong to tell us where we came from, how can we trust it to tell us where we are going?

 

[newhope101]

If God created humans one would expect to find genomic evidence of 2 ancestors in all sexually replicating creatures. I have already posted info from various genome projects that find exactly that, just as predicted. Humans included. That evidence along with the flaws in radiometric and genomic dating (evidence already posted), is excellent evidence of creation.

If God created asexual creatures one would predict that genome mapping would indicate lineage to an individual creature. It does. Evidence already provided.

If God created life one would predict that humans cannot create life. Just as predicted, despite all the advances in science this holy grail escapes them, as predicted.

If God created the first kind of every creature and gave them huge array of genetic diversity to multiply and fill the earth one would predict scientists would have a great deal of trouble linking the lineages. As predicted they do. Fossil evidence does not line up with phylogenic data. Evidence has been provided.

If God created all life one would expect to see some proof that the creation was created by one mind. We share high percentages of genes with the most simplest creatures. Gods signature is throughout his creation as predicted. Evidence previously provided.

If God created every 'kind' using the same template for life one could predict many creatures may have useless genes that God did not wish to express. We do, as predicted. The sponge and other evidence provided.

Finally if creation was true one may predict the evidence would speak for itself and fit simply into some creative model. It does. If one kind evolved into another kind one would expect the evidence to speak for itself and simply fit in with ToE models. They do not. Rather it takes a myriad of hypothesis to make it fit (and there are still inconsistencies), particularly now that evolutionary science has moved away from falable human classifications and put some proper scientific methods behind it.

Data provides the facts. Hypothesis is about how one interprets data.[/quote]


ToE makes predictions that you lot say have occured and this is evidence. Likewise, creationist thinking can make predictions. If you haven't followed the thread to have read the refutes that highlight the veracity of the above predictions then that's tough for you. All some of you want to do is go around in circles.

I'll do you all a favour and post some info that illustrates the veracity of ToE claims.

For now why don't you try to refute my creationist predictions?

 

[newhope101]

You may whine away. Latest research highlights the nonsense evolutionists come up with. Remember the famous Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis and Ichthyornis, your precious transitional fossils. These crazy researchers for years have sprooked about these specimens. Made the world believe they actually had some scientific way of working out the morphology of the macroevolution from dinosaur to bird. All the diagrams you lot have shoved in creationists faces as evidence, showing how dino legs morphed into bird wings are rubbish. Now they’ll have to turn the diagram around and make sense of them again and show how teeth morphed out of a bird.

No doubt there will be an array of debated, money wasting research, and resulting hypothesis for you all to swallow. So eyes closed, open you mouth really wide and get ready to swallow the next round of nonsense.

To put it politely…It’s all rubbish. As the article states researchers see what they want to see, which is what I’ve been saying all along. These creatures are not transitional anything. What happens now to the evolutionary line of Lizards to Pterosaurs to Archosaurs to Dinosaurs to Birds? What a joke on the community!
Another discovery, a mammal-like crocodile fossil found in East Africa, Pakasuchus, has mammal teeth. Alligators HoxD-11 gene in the first finger is most similar to finger one of the mouse. But the mouse is distantly related to birds, Crocodilians are supposed to be a birds closest living relative.

Researchers should be ashamed of themselves feeding their straw grabbing claims to the public, as if they actually knew what they were on about.

If you HAD evidence that birds came from dinosaurs and NOW you have evidence dinosaurs came from birds. Effectively, what you have, is no evidence at all. Your other transitional evidence is going the same way, like tiktaalic the first creature to walk on land only there were already tetrapod footprints around.etc etc etc.

Many scientists are fool hardy liars out to make a name for themselves. Their incompetence should now reflect on all their supposed evidence as nothing more that fabrication.
　
　
Bird-from-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?
ScienceDaily (Feb. 10, 2010) — A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.
A new analysis was done of an unusual fossil specimen discovered in 2003 called "microraptor," in which three-dimensional models were used to study its possible flight potential, and it concluded this small, feathered species must have been a "glider" that came down from trees. The research is well done and consistent with a string of studies in recent years that pose increasing challenge to the birds-from-dinosaurs theory, said John Ruben, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University who authored a commentary in PNAS on the new research.
"We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."
In their own research, including one study just last year in the Journal of Morphology, OSU scientists found that the position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their ability to have adequate lung capacity for sustained long-distance flight, a fundamental aspect of bird biology. Theropod dinosaurs did not share this feature. Other morphological features have also been identified that are inconsistent with a bird-from-dinosaur theory. And perhaps most significant, birds were already found in the fossil record before the elaboration of the dinosaurs they supposedly descended from. That would be consistent with raptors descending from birds, Ruben said, but not the reverse.
OSU research on avian biology and physiology has been raising questions on this issue since the 1990s, often in isolation. More scientists and other studies are now challenging the same premise, Ruben said. The old theories were popular, had public appeal and "many people saw what they wanted to see" instead of carefully interpreting the data, he said.
"Pesky new fossils...sharply at odds with conventional wisdom never seem to cease popping up," Ruben wrote in his PNAS commentary. "Given the vagaries of the fossil record, current notions of near resolution of many of the most basic questions about long-extinct forms should probably be regarded with caution."

 

[Autodidact]

If God created humans one would expect to find genomic evidence of 2 ancestors in all sexually replicating creatures. I have already posted info from various genome projects that find exactly that, just as predicted. Humans included. That evidence along with the flaws in radiometric and genomic dating (evidence already posted), is excellent evidence of creation.

If God created asexual creatures one would predict that genome mapping would indicate lineage to an individual creature. It does. Evidence already provided.

If God created life one would predict that humans cannot create life. Just as predicted, despite all the advances in science this holy grail escapes them, as predicted.

If God created the first kind of every creature and gave them huge array of genetic diversity to multiply and fill the earth one would predict scientists would have a great deal of trouble linking the lineages. As predicted they do. Fossil evidence does not line up with phylogenic data. Evidence has been provided.

If God created all life one would expect to see some proof that the creation was created by one mind. We share high percentages of genes with the most simplest creatures. Gods signature is throughout his creation as predicted. Evidence previously provided.

If God created every 'kind' using the same template for life one could predict many creatures may have useless genes that God did not wish to express. We do, as predicted. The sponge and other evidence provided.

Finally if creation was true one may predict the evidence would speak for itself and fit simply into some creative model. It does. If one kind evolved into another kind one would expect the evidence to speak for itself and simply fit in with ToE models. They do not. Rather it takes a myriad of hypothesis to make it fit (and there are still inconsistencies), particularly now that evolutionary science has moved away from falable human classifications and put some proper scientific methods behind it.

Data provides the facts. Hypothesis is about how one interprets data.


ToE makes predictions that you lot say have occured and this is evidence. Likewise, creationist thinking can make predictions. If you haven't followed the thread to have read the refutes that highlight the veracity of the above predictions then that's tough for you. All some of you want to do is go around in circles.

I'll do you all a favour and post some info that illustrates the veracity of ToE claims.

For now why don't you try to refute my creationist predictions?

HOW. HOW. HOW. NOT WHO, HOW.
Science is not about who, it's about how. Your first step would be to tell us your hypothesis for HOW, not who but HOW God created the many species of organisms. Once you have stated your hypothesis, we can begin to think about predictions.

If you only hypothesis is that God did it, using God magic, then no predictions are possible. God is all-powerful and unknowable. Therefore if God created the species, kinds or abberjabbers using God magic, He could have done so in any way He liked, and it is impossible to make any predictions about how He may have wished to do so. Basically, once you get into magic and the supernatural, you leave the area science can work. That is one of the reasons that science is about

HOW. HOW. HOW. NOT WHO, HOW.

 

[Autodidact]

Note: page 58 and we still don't have a hypothesis from any of our creationist friends. I wonder why that is?

 

[PolyHedral]

You copy and pasted your previous post without addressing any of the objections to it. Why are you still here?

If God created all life one would expect to see some proof that the creation was created by one mind.

Again, why?

 

[McBell]

I wonder why that is?

[youtube]883t2Pac8pk[/youtube]
YouTube - Faith - George Micheal