Creationists, please provide evidence

[newhope101]

Well, newhope, I explained to you in terms a middle-schooler could understand exactly how and why you cannot begin to look for evidence until you first come up with a hypothesis. What hypothesis do you think any of this evidence for? And remember:

HOW. HOW. HOW. NOT WHO, HOW?

And for the umpteen time I ask you to explain HOW HOW HOW you reckon we evolved. Your thousands of rearchers are still hypothesising. So you have no hope at all of explaining how we evolved, either.

As for my hypothesis AGAIN... God created kinds individually and all the evidence supports it. ie My seven points show support for the creation. I have told you how many times. God made most kinds in a huge petrie dish while visiting one of your dimentions. The rest He coalesced into existence, using physics you have yet to imagine. I keep explaining and you keep asking the same old questions because it appears divertions are the best you have to offer. So go ahead and refute me! I suppose you presume to know the mind of God. It takes a special kind of delusion to think you are that special though!

Now unless you are able to supply your evolutionary HOW HOW HOW, I suggest you try pulling your head just in a little. You know..if you ask for more than you, yourself, are able to supply, that makes you a hypocrite.

Furthermore you'll need to come up with a hypothesis for evolution because your researchers can't agree on any more than we all evolved from something, sometime, somewhere, somehow.

 

[newhope101]

this thread is about providing evidence for creation.

try and stay on topic we dont want this thread moved or deleted

I keep putting it up and you just keep singing the same tune. This shows evidence for creation as opposed to theoretical assumptions. Many of your theoretical assumptions reside in the garbage bin of delusionary evidence along with your knucklwalkers.

The evidence supports creation. The assumptions and theoretical hypothesis are all that supports evolution. Sad, but true.

Here AGAIN is the evidence you are unable to refute with anything other than assumptions.

1. Mitochondrial Eve demonstrates all of mankind alive today are related to and descendant from a single female as told in the bible. This evidence supports creation and requires theoretical assumptions to provide support for toe.There is no evidence of cohorts other than by theoretical modelling.

2. Y chromosome Adam, demonstrates we are all related to and descendant from the one male, There is no evidence to suggest that there were cohorts other than theoretical modelling.

3. The Y chromosome in the human and chimpanzee males are remarkably and unexpectedly different to each other and comparable to a chicken and human at 310 million years of divergence.. Hence further proof that Chimps and humans are not related. Your attempts to explain why the Y chromosomes are so different is theoretical. The fact that they are very different supports chimps and humans being created individually.

4. An abundance of life is shown to arise during the Cambrian period. This is the evidence and this is proof of creation. Anything else apart from this evidence are hypothetical assumptions. Evolutionists attempts to assert ancestry to the Precambrian creation have failed. Researchers are unable to provide anything more than assumptions and hypothesis re oxygen levels and why such a plethora of life suddenly begins to appear at the one time. Many Precambrian creatures still exist today..

5. Mankind appears fully formed. This is evidence for creation. Researchers attempts to show ancestry through the fossil record to chimpanzees have failed. The constant debate and reclassification of fossil evidence along with proof that homo cranial features are not unique to the homo line, invalidate any attempt to prove ancestry through morphological similarity. Genomic information is reliant on fossil evidence to inform same and hence is not a reliable source of data. Evolutionary moves away from smooth transitions to staged evolution to resolve the fossil evidence have also failed. Your attempts to tie bipedal walking to brain increases have failed. Your attempts to tie humans to knuckle walkers have failed. Your attempts to classify bipedal walking as a move to humanness have failed.

6. The search for Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) has failed and no longer ties all life to a single LUCA. This supports creation. Your assumption in relation to horizontal gene transfer remain controversial and provide no substance other than assumptions and hypothesis as to why there is no LUCA. The fact is simply, there is no LUCA and that is evidence in favour of creation.

7. Researchers have now shown that the sharing of genes means little in the understanding of what makes humans special or other creatures unique. It is about gene expression and gene families. The fact that a human and a plant share genes is proof of common design, and not ancestry.


There you go outhouse...just for you...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

deleted or moved for not being a debate and not being in the right section

I suspect deleted...but I'm not sure by whom. Even if moved I should still be able to see since I commented there.


:sad4:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I keep putting it up and you just keep singing the same tune. This shows evidence for creation as opposed to theoretical assumptions. Many of your theoretical assumptions reside in the garbage bin of delusionary evidence along with your knucklwalkers.

The evidence supports creation. The assumptions and theoretical hypothesis are all that supports evolution. Sad, but true.

Here AGAIN is the evidence you are unable to refute with anything other than assumptions.

1. Mitochondrial Eve demonstrates all of mankind alive today are related to and descendant from a single female as told in the bible. This evidence supports creation and requires theoretical assumptions to provide support for toe.There is no evidence of cohorts other than by theoretical modelling.

2. Y chromosome Adam, demonstrates we are all related to and descendant from the one male, There is no evidence to suggest that there were cohorts other than theoretical modelling.

3. The Y chromosome in the human and chimpanzee males are remarkably and unexpectedly different to each other and comparable to a chicken and human at 310 million years of divergence.. Hence further proof that Chimps and humans are not related. Your attempts to explain why the Y chromosomes are so different is theoretical. The fact that they are very different supports chimps and humans being created individually.

4. An abundance of life is shown to arise during the Cambrian period. This is the evidence and this is proof of creation. Anything else apart from this evidence are hypothetical assumptions. Evolutionists attempts to assert ancestry to the Precambrian creation have failed. Researchers are unable to provide anything more than assumptions and hypothesis re oxygen levels and why such a plethora of life suddenly begins to appear at the one time. Many Precambrian creatures still exist today..

5. Mankind appears fully formed. This is evidence for creation. Researchers attempts to show ancestry through the fossil record to chimpanzees have failed. The constant debate and reclassification of fossil evidence along with proof that homo cranial features are not unique to the homo line, invalidate any attempt to prove ancestry through morphological similarity. Genomic information is reliant on fossil evidence to inform same and hence is not a reliable source of data. Evolutionary moves away from smooth transitions to staged evolution to resolve the fossil evidence have also failed. Your attempts to tie bipedal walking to brain increases have failed. Your attempts to tie humans to knuckle walkers have failed. Your attempts to classify bipedal walking as a move to humanness have failed.

6. The search for Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) has failed and no longer ties all life to a single LUCA. This supports creation. Your assumption in relation to horizontal gene transfer remain controversial and provide no substance other than assumptions and hypothesis as to why there is no LUCA. The fact is simply, there is no LUCA and that is evidence in favour of creation.

7. Researchers have now shown that the sharing of genes means little in the understanding of what makes humans special or other creatures unique. It is about gene expression and gene families. The fact that a human and a plant share genes is proof of common design, and not ancestry.


There you go outhouse...just for you...

This has all been dealt with in that long winded, long lost/gone thread you started. Your points were address you just don't care about the answers given.

 

[outhouse]

surrendered people obey gods word, even if it doesnt make sense.

 

[newhope101]

well since you mentioned it Dirtypenguin, I remember the uncommented periodic table, a picture of dunny, a tower of abuse, some refute using neanderthal whom is one of the best examples of your confusion and contradictions, some attempt to pass off theoretical precambrian assumptions and hypothesis as evidence, a minimumization of the remarkable differences in the male chimp and human chromososmes, and a stack of links pointing me in the direction of more theoretical evidence.

So no my points have no been addressed really. Just because I don't have an answer to every question, just like you evolutionists, doesn't mean there isn't plenty of convincing evidence for creation. My points illustrate some evidence, supports creation and does not require convoluted theoretical assumptions to explain it. And..it is much less confusing looking at the evidence through creationist eyes..

 

[McBell]

And..it is much less confusing looking at the evidence through creationist eyes..

Of this I have no doubt.
I mean, it must be tons less confusing when you ignore, toss out, and dismiss everything you do not like.

 

[newhope101]

Genes of the Chromosome 2 fusion site

Diagramatic representation of the location of the fusion site of chromosomes 2A and 2B and the genes inserted at this location.




The results of the chimpanzee genome project suggest that when ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2, no genes were lost from the fused ends of 2A and 2B. At the site of fusion, there are approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Additional linked copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes exist elsewhere in the human genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9. This suggests that a copy of these genes may have been added to the end of the ancestral 2A or 2B prior to the fusion event. It remains to be determined if these inserted genes confer a selective advantage.

• PGML. The phosphoglucomutase-like gene of human chromosome 2. This gene is incomplete and may not produce a functional transcript.[8]
• FOXD. The forkhead box D4-like gene is an example of an intronless gene. The function of this gene is not known, but it may code for a transcription control protein.
• CBWD. Cobalamin synthetase is a bacterial enzyme that makes vitamin B12. In the distant past, a common ancestor to mice and apes incorporated a copy of a cobalamin synthetase gene (see: Horizontal gene transfer). Humans are unusual in that they have several copies of cobalamin synthetase-like genes, including the one on chromosome 2. It remains to be determined what the function of these human cobalamin synthetase-like genes is. If these genes are involved in vitamin B12 metabolism, this could be relevant to human evolution. A major change in human development is greater post-natal brain growth than is observed in other apes. Vitamin B12 is important for brain development, and vitamin B12 deficiency during brain development results in severe neurological defects in human children.
• CXYorf1-like protein. Several transcripts of unknown function corresponding to this region have been isolated. This region is also present in the closely related chromosome 9p terminal region that contains copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes.
• Many ribosomal protein L23a pseudogenes are scattered through the human genome

So, 150,000 base pairs of 2A & 2B were not found in the chimp at the site of fusion, yet we are lead to believe they were soooooo identical. What you do know is, non human primates do not have human chromosome 2, or the human variant of FoxP2 either. Sharing what apears to be similar genes means little. How this came to be is based on theoretical assumptions in the face of no other evolutionary explanation.

 

[Bereanz]

I will not dig evidence up for imagination, you can go find it yourself i dont have time for games related to fiction.

The above is a quote by OUTHOUSE on another thread. What I have witnessed so far in the two threads I have graced with my presence in the EV Verses C Threads, is, for the most part, a CABAL OF BULLY BOY EVOLUTIONARY CULTISTS sitting around demanding evidence from creationists which when supplied is roundly mocked, cajoled and jeered to scorn, without providing an once of evidence themselves, often accompanied by petulant childish refusals to do so. Either that or it's ignored.

This is just an observation from a new skid on the jocks. Im interested to know if any one else has observed this patten, or is it just me?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

well since you mentioned it Dirtypenguin, I remember the uncommented periodic table, a picture of dunny, a tower of abuse, some refute using neanderthal whom is one of the best examples of your confusion and contradictions, some attempt to pass off theoretical precambrian assumptions and hypothesis as evidence, a minimumization of the remarkable differences in the male chimp and human chromososmes, and a stack of links pointing me in the direction of more theoretical evidence.

So no my points have no been addressed really. Just because I don't have an answer to every question, just like you evolutionists, doesn't mean there isn't plenty of convincing evidence for creation.

That's the whole point that you seem to not get. We point you in the direction where the evidence is. You don't except it. Instead you come back using nonsensical terms such as "theoretical assumption".....

Stating that it's evidence for creation without being able to present empirical evidence of life "being" created does not work. Your hypothesis that "God did it" is a weak one because we now have to test that hypothesis. How do you think we should go about testing your god? If it can't be done then the hypothesis fails to become an accepted theory.

I get it. You want to use mtEve and Y Adam as your "evidence" for creation and you've even cited the wiki that talks about the findings but you only pick and choose that which fits your preconceived notion and leave out the rest. mtEve, as the aticle cites, was not the only female, the population never dipped below 10k, mtEve and Y Adam never existed together, mtEve precedes Y Adam by almost 100k years. Your bible lays out the creation events in the reverse order having Adam first and Eve being created from the genetic material of Adam even though this is impossible because mtDNA is passed from the mother not the father.

I gave you the information on the evolution of the Chimp and human Y chromosome. It's not as different as you believe.

[youtube]ooAcgM-_IZ8[/youtube]
YouTube - Are Men More Evolved Than Women?
The above is exactly what was described in the science article I presented. Biologist aren't bothered by the difference in the Y chromosome. It doesn't effect evolution one bit as we see here (Whitehead Institute - Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected).


Y Chromosome Evolving Rapidly - ScienceNOW
"When the team members compared the MSY sequences, they got a surprise. They found that the chimpanzee Y chromosome has lost lots of genes that are present in humans, which suggests the human Y resembles that of the common ancestor more than does the chimp's Y. Chimpanzees only have two-thirds of the genes present in the human MSY. But the chimpanzee MSY has acquired twice as many palindromes--large blocks of DNA in which the sequence of nucleotides is a mirror image of the sequence on its complementary strand. The addition of new palindromes in chimpanzees and humans has led to major structural differences in the Y of both species, the team reported online in Nature today. "The palindrome regions of the Y are almost like a house that is being rebuilt," says Page--one in which similar, prefabricated units are being added on in different ways in the genomes of the two species. The researchers propose that the rapid evolution and wholesale remodeling of the Y chromosome in both species have been caused by several mechanisms, including the competitive advantage gained by developing new genes for sperm production. In chimps in particular, natural selection favors the production of lots of sperm because many males mate with fertile females, so males that produce more (or better) sperm have more offspring. The researchers also suggest that because the Y cannot exchange genes with the X chromosome anymore, it uses other unusual ways to reconfigure its DNA, such as recombining with itself to add on new segments of identical DNA--or palindromes--into its genome."


So all of it still goes to support ToE.

My points illustrate some evidence, supports creation and does not require convoluted theoretical assumptions to explain it. And..it is much less confusing looking at the evidence through creationist eyes..

Because the evidence is not important to creationist. All you need is "God did it". Again, there is NO SUCH thing in the field of ANY science known as "theoretical assumption". This has been explained to you in great detail as well as informing you that the information on mtEve, which you seem to accept, was derived in a "theoretical" fashion.

 

[Bereanz]

That's the whole point that you seem to not get. We point you in the direction where the evidence is. You don't except it. Instead you come back using nonsensical terms such as "theoretical assumption".....

Stating that it's evidence for creation without being able to present empirical evidence of life "being" created does not work..

Might you please define your definition of "empirical evidence" ?

Also the term " temporary scientific uncertainties"

I find the term "theoretical assumption" is quite self explanatory and in no way nonsensical. It simply means it's an assumption lacking factual evidence to back it up. One can never assume, it makes an *** out of u and me. Although to be precise, the use of the word "Theorectical" as a prefix to "assumption" is arguably, superfluous.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Might you please define your definition of "empirical evidence" ?

To be able to observe and test. The "God did it" hypothesis says...well, "God did it". How does one go about observing "God" and testing the claims of "creation"?

Also the term " temporary scientific uncertainties"

Not sure because I've never used it. Although it is well know that science does not work on "certainty". The scientific method is open for falsifiability. Certainty may be what is expected in mathematics.

I find the term "theoretical assumption" is quite self explanatory and in no way nonsensical. It simply means it's an assumption lacking factual evidence to back it up. One can never assume, it makes an *** out of u and me

Actually you're incorrect. In the field of science in order for it to be called a theory there has to be evidence. The experiments have to be repeated and testable. This is why Evolution is called a Theory. In science "Theory" means fact.

This is why I use Influenza as an example. No credible biologist in the field of medicine would ever discount ToE because in order to understand that virus you must have an understanding of Evolution. I also gave the example of (nylon eating bacteria). This bacteria is important because Nylon is man made and was produced in 1935. It was discovered that a bacteria was eating the nylon waste byproduct. Now how is this possible considering the nylon was man made? We know how. The research shows through evolution a strain of the bacteria began to eat this man made product. It's not a "new" bacteria rather one that evolved. If it were "new" then what was the purpose of a "creator" "designing" a bacteria to eat something that wasn't created until it was created by humans in 1935. Creation fails to answer this question and ToE answers it perfectly.

 

[newhope101]

To be able to observe and test. The "God did it" hypothesis says...well, "God did it". How does one go about observing "God" and testing the claims of "creation"?



Not sure because I've never used it. Although it is well know that science does not work on "certainty". The scientific method is open for falsifiability. Certainty may be what is expected in mathematics.



Actually you're incorrect. In the field of science in order for it to be called a theory there has to be evidence. The experiments have to be repeated and testable. This is why Evolution is called a Theory. In science "Theory" means fact.

This is why I use Influenza as an example. No credible biologist in the field of medicine would ever discount ToE because in order to understand that virus you must have an understanding of Evolution. I also gave the example of (nylon eating bacteria). This bacteria is important because Nylon is man made and was produced in 1935. It was discovered that a bacteria was eating the nylon waste byproduct. Now how is this possible considering the nylon was man made? We know how. The research shows through evolution a strain of the bacteria began to eat this man made product. It's not a "new" bacteria rather one that evolved. If it were "new" then what was the purpose of a "creator" "designing" a bacteria to eat something that wasn't created until it was created by humans in 1935. Creation fails to answer this question and ToE answers it perfectly.

I see you are also unable to distinguish fact from the theoretical. There is a huge difference between science based in the here and now and trying to theorize on what went on millions of years ago. All this you posted above and showing grand accomplishments in the here and now in no way justifies nor validates the use of probabilities and theoretical modelling to assume the past.

Also do not forget that there are many here that strongly believe in a God as well as Toe. How do you see these people? Are they clever and functional because they have accepted toe over prior religious beliefs, but delusional also because they believe in a deity? So are they functional or delusional?

Certainly I think anyone that believes in any sort of God has little basis to ridicule others that maintian the creation.

 

[McBell]

I see you are also unable to distinguish fact from the theoretical. There is a huge difference between science based in the here and now and trying to theorize on what went on millions of years ago. All this you posted above and showing grand accomplishments in the here and now in no way justifies nor validates the use of probabilities and theoretical modelling to assume the past.

Also do not forget that there are many here that strongly believe in a God as well as Toe. How do you see these people? Are they clever and functional because they have accepted toe over prior religious beliefs, but delusional also because they believe in a deity? So are they functional or delusional?

Certainly I think anyone that believes in any sort of God has little basis to ridicule others that maintian the creation.

What does this reply have to do with the post quoted?

 

[tumbleweed41]

So....
No empirical, objective evidence to support the creation of life, as is, 10,000-6,000 years ago yet?
And for that matter, no empirical, objective evidence that said life was created by a certain specific God mentioned in Genesis?

What a surprise.

 

[newhope101]

To be able to observe and test. The "God did it" hypothesis says...well, "God did it". How does one go about observing "God" and testing the claims of "creation"?
I suppose this comment is not unlike the "Precambrian Rabbit" discussions. Likewise Toe has no scientific method to invalidate itself, which is required to achieve a valid scientific method. Even if you found a human, let lone a mammal, in the precambrain, researchers would still not say Creation is proven. They would think up some theoretical assumption to explain it away in evolutionary terms. They have done this many times when they have found the unexpected eg staged evolution, accelerated evolution etc, to address the fossil record.


Not sure because I've never used it. Although it is well know that science does not work on "certainty". The scientific method is open for falsifiability. Certainty may be what is expected in mathematics.
Your theorists alledge they account for bias in their modelling. Yet all modelling is scaffolded against the presumption of ancestry. When these scaffolds are changed you may get results that show a chimp and gorilla form a clade, with humans outside the clade, also. This research is very easy to manipulate. Hence chimp-human comparisons can be 1-30% difference depending on method and what you choose to count or ignore.


Actually you're incorrect. In the field of science in order for it to be called a theory there has to be evidence. The experiments have to be repeated and testable. This is why Evolution is called a Theory. In science "Theory" means fact.
No actually you are incorrect. the evidence you have generally supports creation. It is the assumtions and theoretical modelling that is required to turn the evidence into an evolutionary support. For example not that long ago there was excellent irrefutable evidence that we evolved from knuckle walking chimps. You had the hand bones all lined up to show the morph.You also had your skulls showing the morph. Then came along Ardi. The knuckle walking irrefutable evidence was sent to the rubbish bin of delusional evidence past. Why? Because it was not evidence at all. It was flawed theoretical assumptions. Likewise with any of your theoretical assumptions. The same happened to LUCY the irrefutable missing link. Evos had their diagrams and rheemes of articles and evidence. Well, Lucy is now just a gorrilla. Likewise all this evidence is in the garbage. So most certainly and irrefutably I can say that your theories are theoretical and should not be used as a basis for evidence.
Using theory as evidence is no better than providing biblical scriptures as evidence.
This is why I use Influenza as an example. No credible biologist in the field of medicine would ever discount ToE because in order to understand that virus you must have an understanding of Evolution. I also gave the example of (nylon eating bacteria). This bacteria is important because Nylon is man made and was produced in 1935. It was discovered that a bacteria was eating the nylon waste byproduct. Now how is this possible considering the nylon was man made? We know how. The research shows through evolution a strain of the bacteria began to eat this man made product. It's not a "new" bacteria rather one that evolved. If it were "new" then what was the purpose of a "creator" "designing" a bacteria to eat something that wasn't created until it was created by humans in 1935. Creation fails to answer this question and ToE answers it perfectly.

As I stated, using examples in the here and now does not validate theoretical assumptions. The difference being they can see their results without the same level of assumptions being made.

Wiki -Bacteria
Once regarded as plants constituting the Class Schizomycetes, bacteria are now classified as prokaryotes. Unlike cells of animals and other eukaryotes, bacterial cells do not contain a nucleus and rarely harbour membrane-boundorganelles. Although the term bacteria traditionally included all prokaryotes, the scientific classification changed after the discovery in the 1990s that prokaryotes consist of two very different groups of organisms that evolved independently from an ancient common ancestor. These evolutionary domains are called Bacteria and Archaea.[8]

Them there's Wiki -Prokaryotes

There is no consensus among biologists concerning the position of the eukaryotes in the overall scheme of cell evolution. Current opinions on the origin and position of eukaryotes span a broad spectrum including the views that eukaryotes arose first in evolution and that prokaryotes descend from them, that eukaryotes arose contemporaneously with eubacteria and archeabacteria and hence represent a primary line of descent of equal age and rank as the prokaryotes, that eukaryotes arose through a symbiotic event entailing an endosymbiotic origin of the nucleus, that eukaryotes arose without endosymbiosis, and that eukaryotes arose through a symbiotic event entailing a simultaneous endosymbiotic origin of the flagellum and the nucleus, in addition to many other models, which have been reviewed and summarized elsewhere.

So you see bacteria are just as debated and theorised about as everything else in Toe. Then of course there is horizontal gene tranfer and LUCA is dead.

Researchers are far from working out what evolved from whom, where, when, why and how. It is all still fairly well up for grabs by any researcher out to make a name for themselves.
​

 

[tumbleweed41]

Typical weak attack on biological evolution while evading the requirement to provide objective, empirical evidence in support of Creationism, particularly literal Genesis Creationism.

 

[outhouse]

154 pages and only weak attaks on evolution.

and not one shred of evidence for creation, nothing, nada, zip!!!

 

[newhope101]

So....
No empirical, objective evidence to support the creation of life, as is, 10,000-6,000 years ago yet?
And for that matter, no empirical, objective evidence that said life was created by a certain specific God mentioned in Genesis?

What a surprise.

You should know by now that there are varying creationist thoughts, just like toe. I am not young earth. However, the young earthers also have a case, if that's what your getting at.

You have the MRCA of every human alive today set at 5,000ya. You have the human version of FOXP2 dated to 5,000ya. This is when language and arts became apparent. Then there's the flood. So this dating is supportive of a biblical creation. Not al creationists believe in a global flood but rather a mega flood. Then there is the refute of all your dating methods which are also theoretical and likely flawed. So yeah,,I think there is good evidence around for the young earth model.

The points I listed yesterday are in relation to evidence for the creation. Just because anyone cannot answer all the questions does not mean their theory is incorrect. This must be a valid point otherwise Toe, that has more questions than answers, is also not a valid theory. Yet despite all the confusion and proven false assumptions you still have not killed Toe.

There is plenty of evidence for creation. I reckon the basis for toe is 99% theoretical assumptions and 1% evidence. The 99% of theoretical assumptions are what supports Toe and why it appears you have so much 'evidence'. The 1% of actual evidence is all in favour of the creation and that's all that creationists need. We need evidence and not assumptions. Perhaps that makes creationsists more scientific than evolutionists in a way.

 

[outhouse]

You should know by now that there are varying creationist thoughts

yes imagination does vary

just like toe.

this is a LIE by you again

the young earthers also have a case

they have a case of being delusional

also theoretical and likely flawed.

that is a LIE and your thinking is flawed

there is good evidence around for the young earth model.

you think wrong and there is no evidence at all

There is plenty of evidence for creation. I reckon the basis for toe is 99% theoretical assumptions and 1% evidence.

you dont have %1 evidence, you have 0 evidence

you have never had any evidence for any of your lies and banter