Raising Standards

How do we test this hypothesis of yours?
Scientific theories make predictions which can be tested against nature.
Scientific theories, including evolution, have been verified by such processes.What observable predictions are made as a logical consequence of your theory?
How can we verify or refute your hypothesis?

So, in short, you do not have an objectively physically verifiable hypothesis at all.I am afraid that until you do your views will be considered as unscientific, subjective, mystical nonsense that has little link with reality and no real worth in terms of being considered any further.You really do need to formulate a testable hypothesis if you want anyone to take this at all seriously.

You are interpreting physical evidence in terms of a preconceived pilosophical position.The only way to ensure that your conclsions are not simply delusional is to test them against nature.
You need to make predictions regarding the nature of new evidence that is the logical consequence of your theory and which seperates it from the competing theories.Effectively you need to make a prediction of new physical evidence that could not be made by standard evolutionary theory.Can you do this?
If not why should we even consider your theory as an alternative to evolutionary theory which has passed such objective tests?

Alternate explanations for know phenomenon are not objective, are not predictions and in no way verify your preconceived conclusions.Predictions of new phenomenon that are a direct consequence of your theory and which seperate it from evolutionary theory. Do you have any?

Like me? I don't need to familiarise myself with your, or anybody elses, untestable, unverifiable personal pet theory.
As far as I am concerened we have a phsyically tested predictively verified theory of evolution.Unless you can at the very least match those predictions in terms of physical evidence your "theory" (such as it is) will always be inferior to evolutionary theory.Obviously. Surely you can see that it is not up to you to decide that you should be recognised?On what basis should anybody else give any credence to your untestable unverifiable ideas? Well it is your theory. Therefore it is up to you to explain it and back it up. If you are incapable of presenting it in objective or verifiable terms then I won't waste my time any further.

I thought you were proposing an alternative to evolutionary theory?
Yet your only prediction is a deeply subjective and frankly slightly bonkers assessmnet as to the origin of various books?Your theories are a waste of time. I'll leave you to decalre just how much the rest of the world is missing out by not listening to you......

Words are defined by their use. Scientists consistently use the term to describe a commonly understood evidence based concept. You are offering an un-evidenced and untestable subjective pet theory. You are apparently offering this as an alternative to a highly physically evidenced, established, predictively verified theory.Why would we swap this theory for your unevidenced one? Your laws etc. etc. are just deeply subjective personal interpretations of evidence. Is there any objective physical evidence for angels or any of the rest of this nonsense?In the absence of any objective natural physical evidence for your theory why should anyone give your deeply subjective pet theory a moment of their time?Why?

We ask you to backup your claims yourself because -1) We already have a perfectly good theory of evolution
2) Your theories sound like mad unevidenced nonsenseWhy should we look for your alternative if it sounds like drivel and even you are unable to explain to us why it is anything other than nonsense?

Your assumptions regarding my motivations are as subjective, unevidenced and frankly wrong as your whole alternative "theory".
I know many theists who have absolutely no problem with the theory of evolution.
Those who advocate the theory of evolution do so because it is an extremely powerful explanatory theory backed up by a wealth of physical evidence and predictive objectively verified tests. Please explain why a wholly subjective unevidenced and untestable theory should be considered legitimate or worthwhile by anybody else?This is the question you seem totally unwilling to confront.
You seem totally unwilling to even consider the idea of objective evidence, prediction, testing etc. etc. as the hallmarks of a valid theory. No one, not even you, can familiarise themselves with every crackpot theory that has ever arisen.
A new theory needs to at least match the predictive power of the theory it seeks to surpass.
There are countless unevidenced theories that makes no predictions but which purport to reveal magnificent "truths" that the rest of us somehow missed. Why is yours any different?My question to you is what makes your theory any more valid than that of the guy I met on the bus last week who had spent the last 20 years documenting and compiling "evidence" that the human race is the direct result of an underground martian civilisation's biological experiment gone wrong?
He had folders bursting with "proof", anecdotal evidence etc. etc. etc.Do you feel the need to familiarise yourself with his work? The future of man is not enhanced by taking on board the pet theories of every fanatic or nutcase that claims that they have access to a truth that the rest of us have somehow failed to see.If your theories can be objectively demonstrated to be worth investigation they will be investigated. But unless there is a reason to differentiate you from the 'lunatics on the bus' that is exactly where you and your theories will remain. On the bus. Going nowhere.Don't blame everyone else for your inability to raise yourself and your theory above the 'lunatic on the bus' level. The fault lies with either your or the inadequacy of your theory. Or both.

Why does anyone get caught up and obsessed with such things? Probably because they subjectively believe them to be true.
I don't doubt her, or your, sense of conviction and belief.
I do however doubt the validity of those beliefs. It is up to you to present your beliefs in such a way as make them convincing.Simply saying "I have done lots of research, I know the truth. Follow me" is just silly. An untestable, unscientific, deeply subjective explanation. Why should we investigate this any more than the theories of my aforementioned bus dwelling proponent of underground martian civilisations?Would you have students assess his lifetime of work as well? Would we invite everyone with a pet theory into the classrooms of the world such that they can be assessed? I can ask for objective, physical evidence and methods of predictive testing. If provided I can assess the validity of the theory by the same standards as every other scientific theory.
If unable to be provided I can reliably conclude that the theory in question is almost certainly a wholly subjective pet theory based on the delusional ramblings of a well meaning but not to be taken seriously eccentric.

I will ask again.Why is your theory any more worthy of investigation, research, time , money or consideration than that of my 'friend' on the bus who has spent the last 20 years demonstrating that the human race is the product of a disastrous experiment undertaken by a peaceful underground lizard-like race of martians who now live in fear of their creation (i.e. us) discovering their existence?He has 20 years of research under his belt. He was apparently a highly qualified structural engineer in his yourth. He has numerous pieces of anecdotal and coincidental pieces of "evidence" to back up his claim. He is trying to get his findings published (with no success unsurprisingly) and is as equally convinced as you that if people would just listen his revolutionary new theory then large parts of modern science would be overthrown.On what basis is your theory to be taken more seriously than this or any other of the millions of crackpot theories that exist in the minds of obviously delusional individuals?

So basically you can demonstrate no more worth to your theory than can be demonstrated by any of the other multitude of untestable, subjective pet theories promoted by delusional fanatics and guardians of the "truth" around the globe. I suspect most have forgotten already.
Oh well. Never mind.

Why don't you just state your case. Simply, factually and with the objective physical evidence laid bare for all to examine?
Forget the frills, the pseudo-philosophical ramblings, the statements of persecution etc. etc.You have yet to say anything that is remotely scientific so how do you expect to convince anyone? Especially scientists.

You continue to offer no reliable evidence for your beliefs.Shall I put you in contact with my bus travelling friend? (the one with the martian experiment hypothesis)On what grounds is his theory not worthy of your consideration?

Yes yes yes. If I just took what you say to be true on faith, if I abandoned the requirement for evidence based objectivity, if I submit myself to the one true "way" then my life will be enriched and I will "know" the "truth".This is textbook delusional evangelism on your part.
You are no different to my friend on the bus. Except perhaps that his martian origins hypothesis is at least testable in principle.