I say that the data leans more in support of a creative event by an intelligent designer than it does support the theory of evolution. The operative word is supports rather than proves.
Utter nonsense.
If a God created life what do you suppose the data and evidence would look like? What would creation predict as opposed to TOE?
That is exactly what we have been asking you guys for ages now. And since it is your notion that ToE is wrong and "God did it" is right, you get to formulate that little nugget. That doesn't mean your hypothesis will be instantly approved (even as a workable hypothesis), but it will at least give us something to work with.
Scientists appear surprised to say the least at the genomic similarities among species. This is not what ToE would expect. Rather researchers expected to see some sort of more significant graduations in various life forms. This is not what is evident by the data.
Nonsense. The mapping of DNA has shown us a perfect "family" tree that is fully consistent with what we would expect if Evolution is true. In fact, DNA has become the strongest evidence in favour of Evolution that we have.
Rather, why would a God bother to make everything so individual. He has nothing to prove. He used certain genes as the basics, tuned then on or off, expressed them, whatever. I would expect that creation theory would predict that all life should be fairly similar genetically if the one mind created it all by kicking off a few originals with the capacity to diversify. Yep. Much easier to understand than all the gobble.
Just because you can't understand "all the gobble" doesn't mean that your delusion is correct. That's just an argument from ignorance and therefore invalid. Next.
Doesn’t Toe predict the graduation in skulls from chimp to human.
Newsflash: We did not evolve from chimps. Even my fifth grade pupils know that.
Creation would predict a sudden appearance of modern mankind. Is that not what is found.
No, it is not.
All those skulls that are not obviously human would be non humans primates.
What is your criteria for "not obviously human"?
We already know the mistake researchers made in representing Neanderthal until recently. Really researchers do not know, it’s guesswork guised as science until discovered.
Mate, you really don't understand how science works, do you? Science does not progress in a straight line wherein all tests come back positive and all experiments are successful. To use an analogy, rather than the bullet from a sniper-rifle science is more like a shot-gun blast. We fire it off in the direction we think will work and then we see if any of our pellets hit anything. That is how we do research. Now, most of the pellets will miss and even some that we think hit the target will later be shown to have missed or even hit another target altogether. That is what doing science means.
But once we have shot enough pellets and confirmed the location we can then start to hit that target with unprecedented accuracy. That is the application of science and it makes it the most successful and powerful idea we humans have come up with.
Any discovery complicating the human line debate and leading to more hypothesis.
Yes, the answers we find often lead to more questions. That is not a bad thing though.
The same for other life. It traces back to an individual ancestor.
Correct.
An ancestor that was created by God enabled with huge genetic diversity to flourish and fill the niches in the ecological creation.
Incorrect.
You call this diversification speciation resulting in a species change. Hence the 'kinds' debate.
"Kinds" is a useless term in biology and taxonomy. I'm not saying you disagree, but I thought it prudent to make that clear.
Speciation relative to adaptation as such is not against creative theory. If one drops the species change and just searched for the initial ancestor and understand that this organism or creature was Gods creation that flourished, it would be much easier.
There is no evidence to indicate that it was God's creation, nor that there even is such a thing as a god.
With very clear definitions.
Much easier to understand that all, of the Homo species, other than sapiens, are simply non human primates.
Simpler? Sure. Incorrect and utterly inaccurate? Definitely.
We should be amazed at the diversity of primates that has existed. Rather than turn them into humans of varying degrees.
We don't. We call them apes, monkeys and primates. All of which are terms that fit us as well.
One researcher can ‘prove’ we came from orang-utans. Seriously.
We did not "come" from any of the modern species of apes.
The trouble is researchers are trying to show something that is not there. Rather than support creation. Hence all the confusion. All easily fits and simply into a creative model and intelligent design. Terrific.
Show, don't tell. If this is so obvious to you, then show us the evidence and your conclusions.
Same as MtEve and YAdam, simple to fit in with creation. No need to speculate any further back than 6,000 years and show that there is evidence of human common ancestry with everything.
Of course there is a need to go back further. Life goes back further and so must we. Also, MtEve and YAdam lived thousands of years apart, and considering that in the case of Mitochondrial Eve she is considered to have lived some 200.000 years ago we obviously have to go back more than 6000 years.
As for dating. I have already shown how data can be manipulated. If scientists wanted to they could make the dating fit in with creation then work from there, as they often do.
Do you have any sources that indicate that scientists often manipulate isotope dating or did you just make that up?
You evolutionists like to believe all this complicated nonsense…like sheep to the slaughter you'll believe anything...and creationists really should sympathize.
Seeing as modern medicine is dependent upon our understanding of Evolution I think you should be grateful rather than sympathetic.
