What is needed for creationists to connect evidence to valid conclusions

No Buz, the evolutionist model is an acceptable theory because of the great amount of corroborating evidence it has. The creationist model only has "evidence" if we take your tack to accepting unverifiable annectdotes. Compared to the evidence available in support of the competing model yours has an amount indistinguishable from zilch.You are pretending it needs a "greater" amount because we are so against it. You are wrong. We are against it because it doesn't have any evidence. The model you are competing with has a mountain of evidence going for it and just because you have little to no clue about that doesn't make it go away.For you to connect evidence to valid conclusions you first have to get a little, teensy tiny grasp on what evidence there is out there. Then you have to get a wee, tiny understanding of our reasoning works.

And we get asked why there aren't many creationists here.They can't take a bit of heat. Dare them to use evidence and reason and suddenly there is important business somewhere else.

Ray, you seem to have only one argument: Everyone who disagrees with you is deluded or lying. You've said your piece. How about something new or, perhaps, a detailed demonstration supporting your views instead of unfounded assertions.Boring Ray, very, very boring.

Mr. J. there will be no "paper".

You actually have about 3 posts - repeated 1,000 times each.

Of course we are very interested in reading the paper. Imagine being able to be one of the first 100 or so people to read an historic paradigm shifting surprise to the scientific community.What you should be aware of is that some of us have read papers that are promoted by their authors as such astonishing novel contributions. They are overwhelmingly the work of utter crackpots that, if they are literate enough to be read at all are easily demonstrated to be as full of holes as swiss cheese.Anyone who was actually interested in accomplishing what you claim would be anxious in the extreme to have your work examined as soon as possible to get help in finding flaws in it's presentation, evidence or reasoning. Hiding it, continually promising it without deliverying and braying about how marvelous it is are further characteristics of crackpottiness.You might give thought to that. (or, more likely, you might not) You also forget that many here find the most controversial and surprising things the most interesting. We actually are interested in reading such things. However, given the evidence of your 3 x 1,000 posts so far we are expecting to be disappointed and, at best, amused again.