My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)

Correct. Life forms which creep, where the waters swarm - these precede the winged creatures; and 'swarms' are nano life forms which cannot be seen by the naked eye. We also see that the transit point of life from the oceans to land is in creepings of life forms which extended out between the waters and land [namely 'wherewith']:

Sure. But if you are already an artist, it infers such artistry is already an established vocation - it means you were not the first artist which popped from nowhere 30, 000 years ago, with the next artist emerging only recenty!

A coin which mentions the temple and the year and name of the king, in alphabetical hebrew to boot. Not to mention that temple was destroyed by Babylon 600 BCE. This transcends any C14 dating and alledged 30K year paintings.

Do you not see any difference between a C14 dating made with the total lack of proof seen with a coin!?

Its based on the total reversal of Ra and a sun deity referred to as monotheism. Ask the nations of Arabia and Europe why they don't worship Ra and the sun instead. Your not talking science but as a fundamentalist who cannot be touched of his beliefs.

That's not only retarded, but also a deceptive claim. And the fox tail is exposed as follows.-------
The story of ToE is something like this;Science is referring to a rather specific approach of confirming a specific kind of truth. This specific kind of truth refers to how things keep repeating themselves by following physics laws or natural rules. And the only efficient way to confirm such a kind of truth is to observe how they repeat, then develop a theory on the pattern of how they repeat, then to predict will be resulted on each repeatition. If you predict the repitition results unlimited number of times without failure, the laws/rules/theories you developed are considered a confirmed scientific truth.For example, if you claim that water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen. You'll be able to repeat the resolution unlimited number of times with each time delivering the same expected result (i.e. hydrogen and oxygen). This process is referred to as the predictability of science. If however, something unexpected are resulted instead of hydrogen and oxygen as predicted, the claimed laws/rules/theories (a chemical reaction in this case) are considered to be falsified. This is referred to as the falsifiability of science.Unlike any other science posseses the characteristic of predictability and falsifyability, ToE is developed totally in another approach. So if all other science is confirmed using this approach while ToE uses another, it is thus doubtful that ToE can be confirmed as a science.Not only that, ToE (evolutionists that is) here and there makes false and deceptive claims about its capability (or lack thereof) of predictability and falsifyability. Again, if false claims are allowed in a "science", it adds futher doubt about what the theory itself is.If you declare that 100% species on earth are undergoing and are results of the repeating process of evolution/natural selection, just like the declaration that hydrogen and oxygen shall be resulted by water resolution, you have to make the process repeatable in order to observe, to develop the theory itself and to predict what should be resulted using the theory developed.On the other hand, if you delare the water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen, you can't specify that your theory only works for the water in the kitchen of your house. You need to allow any third party to use any water any where to follow your rule to get the same result. So if you declare that humans, dogs, cats...you name it, are the result of evolution, you should be able to repeatedly reproduce them using the theory you developed. You will be able to say that "under this establishment as a simulated natural environment, natural select shall occur to have humans (or dogs or cats or...you name it) as a resulted product. If something else is produced instead, your theory is thus falsified.ToE doesn't natively follow this approach to confirm the claimed repeating process (evoluton that is), worse still it provides false claims such as "common ancestry is its predicabililty", common ancestry is what history is, and history occurred only once and thus is not a repeatable process. This is not the predictability science demands for the support of the claim that 100% species evolves by following the repeating rule of natural selection.Yet another deceptive claim is that ToE's falsifyability and predictability is done through the experimentation of bacteria. So this is just the same claim that "you can use only the water in my kitchen". Science demands that if you declare that 100% species are evolved by following some kind of law, you'll be able to predictably see how humans, dogs, cats, or any species specified by any third party to be produced in an natural environment (the bacteria thingy is more of a manual environment instead of a natural environment).As a matter of fact, ToE can hardly use a scientifc approach mentioned above to observe how things repeat themselves thus develop the theory and predict the result in accordance to the theory. The approach used by ToE is similar to history study instead of scientific study, they bring up one time historical evidence to try to support and confirm a repeating process. In the perspective that it adapts a totally different approach from any other science, in a sense one may say that it is not a science at all! It is even a false science in the sense that false and deceptive claims are spreaded around. When falsehood is defended religiously, well it is thus a religion!The forgivable part of ToE is that it adapts such an approach simply because "it is so difficult to follow the correct way to do things" as it is almost impossible to establish a simulated natural environment and to give the required time for us to observe the process. Forgivable but this won't make the "theory" any 'better'.

Dr Adequate writes:Have you ever considered the possibility that it is scientists who know what the scientific method is and you who don't?

Impressive rebuttle. Way to address Hawkins points. Scientists know more than you naner naner naner. This after all is a debating site. That's why Hawkins provided his point of view. To debate it. And you say Scientists know blah blah?Really? Scientists are not debating here and it isn't good enough for a reply. Try again. Show us all why his comment is not at all correct. You know for the lay people who believe it like me.

Just like you said in the other thread to me on transitionals, how Scientists know more than me about anatomy.

You need to allow any third party to use any water any where to follow your rule to get the same result. So if you declare that humans, dogs, cats...you name it, are the result of evolution, you should be able to repeatedly reproduce them using the theory you developed. You will be able to say that "under this establishment as a simulated natural environment, natural select shall occur to have humans (or dogs or cats or...you name it) as a resulted product. If something else is produced instead, your theory is thus falsified.

You are getting sloppy here, tired latley?

Sometimes you shall notice how sneaky people are when it is said that "speciation is done in lab" or "natural selction is done in lab" they never mention on what and from what? On human from a single cell?

Hawkins writes:Sometimes you shall notice how sneaky people are when it is said that "speciation is done in lab" or "natural selction is done in lab" they never mention on what and from what? On human from a single cell?