David wrote: "Now, if you can dispute any of the above you have the opportunity to overturn evolutionary theory and make a name for yourself. Go for it."

I shall give that a try then. I respond to some points you raised, as follow:-

--> "The deeper into strata, the less advanced are organisms."
Less-advanced organisms were less capable of surviving climatic changes. They became extinct much earlier and therefore could only be found in deep strata.
There is no proof that less advanced organisms evolved into more complex organisms, (and vanished after being "redundant").

--> "Hominid and dinosaur fossils do not exist in the same strata"
--> "Hominid fossils do not exist in strata below strata containing dinosaur fossils"
I think these are proof that dinosaurs existed well before human did.
But does this prove evolution did happened?? Unfortunately, only anecdotally so. Not scientifically true.

As for which system supplies a better explanation, there is a scope for laying out all possibilities, but make sure they are (i) exhaustive and (ii) mutually exclusive.
(i) Exhaustive - The answer must be one or more of the possibilities listed.
(ii) Mutual exclusiveness - Only one answer can be correct.

What possibilities have we got?? I have ruled out aliens. If there are interesting possibilities then I'd like to hear. To me, the only contenders are evolution and creation.

TRTL,
I am not using multiple names at once. GZ-Tan morphed into gz, then "G Z" because I forgot my previous passwords.
(I didn't bother to approach the administrator to reset my password).
There is a GZA1312 or something but that's not me.

GZ,

Why have you skirted around peer reviewed proof?

“Less-advanced organisms were less capable of surviving climatic changes.”

So, you admit there were less advanced organisms…OK. If that is so, then there are more advanced organisms. That is called evolution. Why were they less likely to survive climatic change? (Cite accredited paper)

“They became extinct much earlier and therefore could only be found in deep strata.” (Cite accredited paper)

“There is no proof that less advanced organisms evolved into more complex organisms,”

This is true if you disregard the whole overwhelming body of fossil evidence.

Fossilised dinosaur and humans in different strata goes a long way to disprove a young earth where contemporary existence is postulated. Had to include that as I don’t’ know your belief slant on things and there are quite a number of similar supernaturally oriented guesses. Maybe make your position clear, as have I.

If you mean by exhaustive that so called “intelligent design” should be considered an equal to science, then you have missed the whole point of science. ID does not have a scientific basis, only one in faith.

And yes, they are mutually exclusive, as I have just explained. Evolution has a basis in science and ID in wishful guessing. I think the Dover trial cleared up that point of confusion.

Yes, to you the only contenders are evolution and creation but you really do not accept evolution.

Now back to the real world. All you have to do is supply proof by way of documented evidence for creation to be true and scientifically backed. But you cannot, as there is none. It is therefore a statement of faith.

Why is 99% of science wrong on this and a mere handful of those calling themselves creation scientists, right. Surely, if they wish to show the rest of us that we are wrong, then they should be doing the science. Why don’t they?

The AFA has found the real arrogance in this attitude is that the hidden reason people accept evolution is because of Satan. I guess you think that also. Do you?

David

david quote>>Now back to the real world.All you have to do is supply proof by way of documented evidence for creation to be true and scientifically backed.But you cannot,as there is none.It is therefore a statement of faith.>>

..your absurd convolutions go on

YOU claim evolution by science method[NAME YOUR facts]
not refer flipantly to fossil record [name the fossils that proves what

i tested you athiests science method right here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305
i asked if its valid/science to validate/name it on the posting

in over 100 posts it wasnt

in the end we all agreed the science isnt in

[you see dear david there are gaps in those fossils you revere as being miraculous proof of science method[huge gaps mainly egsaCTLY WHERE ONE GENUS CHANGES into another genus]

[yes attempts were,made to call speciation[within a genus proof] but specie-ation cant validate e-volution[evolution postulates a new genus from another genus]

it is that that science cant validate

these gaps are for you who hold a so called science method to prove via science method to explain[if science]

[beliving god creation is just that belief
[but you guys claim more than 'belief'[you claim science]

reveal your science

clearly as you cannot your belief is faith based
[not science]

we covered fossils in the debate about evolution[you can not have missed it thus clearly avoided it]

but here again is your oppertuinity
TO NAME YOUR FOSSILS HERE
or here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305

you have failed to name your own generalities
if you persist to claim science [name specifics]

what evolved into what[by what proof?]

present your science PROOFS

name names athiest

or admit you believe your tust in science by faith [not fact]

there goes the neighborhood.

FROM
http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/life.htm

QUOTE>>Evolutionists have proposed seven steps for the natural,chance,spontaneous generation[of life from non-living material..1.formation of monomers[2.formation/polymers[3.development of a meaningful code[4.Transcription of the code molecule[5.Translation of the code molecule[6.The appearance of the proto-cell[7.The appearance of the[FIRST]EVOLVED cell

Without exception,experiments[at eachof these steps have_failed..to demonstrate that such accomplishments can occur[by'chance'events''caused''by the'natural-properties'of molecules.

Contrary to the claims and expectations of evolutionists,origin of life experiments have[only]demonstrated:[1]the law of biogenesis is,credible(2)the probability of'abiogenesis'exceeds numerical possibility,(3)experiments have failed to produce products in natural simulation settings at all seven stages proposed for the alleged abiogenesis,and[4)evolution of life resulting from the natural properties of molecules[that;YET}cannot be generated even in intelligently designed and carefully controlled conditions.

The current...('evolution'as origin of life]...scenarios are untenable and the solution to the problem will not be found by continuing to flagellate these conclusions” H.Yockey;Information theory and molecular biology.1992...

..Nancy Touchette;“So far,none of the current theories have been substantiated or proven by experiment,and no consensus exists about which,if any,of these theories is correct.Solving the mystery may indeed take longer than the origin of life itself”(1993.Evolution: Origin of Life...

The'most'credible explanation for the origin of life is the creation model of intelligent,supernatural design.[It is consistent with the supernatural origin of the universe],confirmed by the law of biogenesis and the law of probabilities,[its predictions are demonstrated by thousands of daily experiments in the laboratory.

Insistence of a'natural'origin model in spite of the natural properties of molecules,their impossible chance of occurring,failed attempts to produce life in sophisticated and intelligently designed experiments,and in contradiction to the law of biogenesis is clearly irrational and unscientific.....Following is a summary of the Law of Biogenesis argument for the supernatural origin of life.

1.Law of Biogenesis:"Living cells come from pre-existing living cells."2.Living cells have never been observed to come from lifeless molecules.3.All attempts to create life in the laboratory have failed.4.Therefore,initial living cells must have originated supernaturally.5.The creation model conforms to the data.

[IF}Evolution proposes that life originated by means of the natural properties of molecules.[PROOVE IT]

evolutionary abiogenesis contradictsBASE}scientific law.[Models that contradict scientific laws are unscientific.Therefore, evolutionary abiogenesis as a model of origins is unscientific

from
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/finch.asp

quote>>There is a very heavy burden of proof on those propounding the doctrine that bacteria have self-transformed into palm trees and fish,and the latter turned into tigers and nuclear scientists.

For one thing,it demands a natural process capable of generating vast amounts of new,bio-functionally significant,coded information.

To watch natural selection sifting and sorting through existing information,deleting chunks of it,begs the question of the origin of all that information.>>..<<What a pity that neither the researchers nor Weiner appear to understand the logical fact that,while natural selection may be an intrinsic part of a particular evolutionary model,

demonstrating it does not of itself demonstrate the‘fact’of evolution—if by that you mean a one-celled organism becoming today’s complex biosphere.>>..<<Weiner recounts how Darwin was able to apply selection to breed pigeons so different from each other that if found by biologists in the wild, they would not only have been categorized as separate species,but even separate genera.

This is of course a marvellous demonstration of the amount of variability built into each created kind,allowing it to respond to changing environmental pressures and thus conserve the kind.>>

<<After all the‘hype’about watching‘evolution’,one reads with amazement that the selection events observed actually turned out to have no net long-term effect.

For example,for a while selection drove the finch populations towards larger birds,then when the environment changed,it headed them in the opposite direction.>>

<<Evolutionists have long argued the opposite—that evolution is invisible in the short term, but would become visible if we had enough time. Yet according to Weiner, we can see evolution happening in the (very) short term, but any longer and it becomes ‘invisible’! The mind boggles at how evolutionists can be blind to this inconsistency.

Weiner quotes a researcher as saying that:

‘A species looks steady when you look at it over the years—but when you actually get out the magnifying glass you see that it’s wobbling constantly.’>>

YET ALL WITHIN THE SPECIES/genus MEAN

more at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2411