The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

You did not. You responded with a condescending lecture about how you want more than one piece of evidence, as if anyone was claiming that the ToE has to stand or fall on nested hierarchies alone, a painfully obvious strawman. Silly goose! We have plenty of lines of evidence, nested hierarchies is just one. But it's the one we're talking about and you have made zero attempt to address it. If you insist on beating on this rather dreary strawman, fine.You point out what any child knows, that one piece of evidence, viewed in isolation can mislead. This is, however, irrelevant; I have more than one piece if evidence. The ToE is supported by countless lines of evidence. I'm just starting with this one. We can't very well discuss them all at once.So, again; do you think that the observations of nested hierarchies are somehow flawed? If so how? How exactly do the observations fail to meet the predictions of the ToE?If you are unable to refute this supporting evidence for the ToE, that's fine. You said it yourself, one piece of evidence alone might lead one to an erroneous conclusion, so the jig ain't up yet. There's absolutely no reason why you can't just admit that the observations of nested hierarchies in living things are indeed evidence in support of the ToE and we can move on to the next piece of evidence.You said you wanted to discuss the evidence. Well this is what that looks like. Time to put your money where your mouth is.Mutate and Survive

That doesn't mean anything. What are the boundaries? What would be forbidden? That's what the nested hierarchy is. It is data that tells us what scenario is most likely. The nested hierarchy is points to common ancestry as being the most likely because this is the pattern we would expect if common ancestry is true.This is just one data point. There are many, many more. However, if you can't admit that the nested hierarchy is evidence for common ancestry then there is no reason to move on to the other data points.

We do have more evidence.29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentBut if you can't accept the nested hierarchy as evidence, why move on to more evidence? You will do the same thing no matter how much evidence we present. You will call it an "assumption" or handwave it away like you are doing here.

What lack of logic?

The debate is about whether a nested hierarchy is a piece of evidence for common ancestry. Do you accept that a nested hierarchy is one piece of evidence for common ancestry?

That's a bad example. In both the Geocentric and Heliocentric model we would see the sun rising and setting, so that evidence can't differentiate between those models. It isn't evidence for either.A nested hierarchy is different. There is only one process we know of that would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy, and that is common ancestry. There is absolutely no reason why we would expect separately created species to produce this pattern. Therefore, a nested hierarchy differentiates between the models unlike your example.And a nested hierarchy is but one piece of evidence out of many.

The nested hierarchy is data. Here are 29+ predictions and the data that matches those predictions.29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentWhat data does the theory of evolution not fit? Now you don't even understand what data is. Someone making a claim about their innocence is not empirical data. It is a claim. If you can't understand the difference between a claim and evidence then you will need to learn how science works.To use your analogy, the nested hierarchy is like finding the suspect's fingerprints at the murder scene. By itself it could be argued that this isn't quite enough evidence, but that's fine. We also have the suspect's DNA, shoe prints, tire prints, and fibers at the crime scene. We also have emails where the suspect writes that they are going to kill the victim. The suspect lacks and alibi, and his cell phone pinged a cell tower not far from the crime. There are stacks and stacks of evidence. But you claim that there isn't evidence for guilt because fingerprints alone can be misleading. That's where we are right now.

You keep adding subjective "no reason" for creation. How have you determined that?Heliocentric model did not exist in earliest days. And even if it existed, it would be considerd parsimonous, would it. And your rule of parsimony would favor geocentric model. Another reason why I do not share your rules you so inconsistently apply as you please.

Eye witnesses testifying about what they see, is not data either then? You should learn what data is.Feel free to choose your most convincing prediction. If you dare.

I have never seen anyone come up with a valid reason why separate creation would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy. The Heliocentric model would have been the most parsimonious explanation because it didn't require other planets to move in circuitous orbits or epicycles. For example, the Heliocentric model was able to explain the retrograde movement of Mars with a simple elliptical orbit.Of course, once we understood more about gravity the solution became really obvious given the relative masses of the planets and the Sun. Another piece of evidence is stellar parallax, the movement of foreground stars in relation to background stars as Earth moved about its orbit around the Sun.The type of argument you are trying to make is equivalent to saying that orbits are caused by invisible pink fairies that just so happen to move planets in orbits consistent with the theory of gravity. You are using the logic of superstition. You don't even understand what the rules are. You seem to think it is logical to propose a supernatural process that just so happens to exactly mimic a natural process, and use your belief in this whimsical supernatural belief as a reason for rejecting the natural explanation. That's the logic of superstition.

People reporting empirical measurements from repeatable methodologies is data. I do, you don't. They are all convincing. I already presented one in this thread:EvC Forum: Mutations Confirm Common DescentWe could also cover sequence conservation in exons and introns if you want. This piece of evidence is one cited by Dr. Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, as one of the more convincing pieces of evidence. You can read more here:https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

You have been constantly trying to find a straw man to attack.And I showed you how your questions are based on false logic and incorrect assumptions. But you don't even understand that. You instead ignore it and fire the same questions again and accuse me of whatever.Do you think observations of sunrise and sunset are flawed? Do you think this is a useful question to ask? I don't think so. So stop and think for once, before asking nonsense questions.

Haha evading the question is best you can do. So you want to repeat the crime or disregard eye witness accounts as data?

I meant to say that geocentric required less assumptions and less parameters than heliocentric, for the data available thousands of years ago. So geocentric was more parsimonous than heliocentric.

How can there be straw men when you refuse to take any position, pretending instead to some high-minded neutrality? You need to take some sort of position before anyone can misrepresent you. No you didn't. You got all shy, bless you! Remember? And then you started making excuses for why you didn't need to address the evidence. But those excuses were fallacious nonsense.All that leaves you still seemingly unable to find fault in the evidence cited, the presence of nested hierarchies and how they provide strong evidence for evolution. I think your example is flawed. There is no known process that creates a nested hierarchy other than evolution and nested hierarchies are far from the only evidence for the ToE. There's no equivalence with geocentrism/heliocentrism. It's a poor metaphor. You're the one who asked it, as a dodge, to get you out of addressing the point you can't answer; the presence of nested hierarchies in nature and the powerful evidence they provide for the ToE.For your silly comparison to work, there would have to be an alternative explanation for the nested hierarchy of life. Do you have one? Do you have anything? Anything at all? Because all this weaseling around just makes it appear as though you're desperate to avoid discussing this evidence.Do you think that the observations of nested hierarchies are somehow flawed? If so how? How exactly do the observations fail to meet the predictions of the ToE? It is hardly nonsense to compare the predictions of a theory to the observations we see in nature. That is, in actual fact, the scientific method. Do you have a better method than deriving predictions from a theory and then testing those predictions against observed reality? If so your Nobel Prize is in the post.Again; do you think that the observations of nested hierarchies are somehow flawed? If so how? How exactly do the observations fail to meet the predictions of the ToE?Mutate and Survive