Summations Only

Normally in science a theory is used to explain facts.Does it not worry you that you have no facts underlying your theory?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You are correct in that, but what you have is an hypothesis, not a theory. Theories are based on facts and they explain those facts.When you have no facts you have an hypothesis.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That is not a "fact." And "need" is certainly not something on which to build a solid theory. Need might drive hypotheses, and hypothesis testing, but it is only through explanation of large bodies of facts, successful predictions, and contradiction by no significant facts, that one can truly develop a theory.Your admission that you have no facts seems to argue against considering what you are working on as a theory. If you are doing serious testing, you may be working with an hypothesis. Otherwise you just have a bunch of nice ideas. Those are a dime a dozen. Their work simply modified some details in our understanding of the way in which evolution operates. No big deal. That kind of thing happens all the time in science. I think you may have a hard time demonstrating the connection of those ideas to biology. Philosophy is largely a joke to working scientists, as philosophers have been naval-gazing for 2,500 years with little result. Science has passed them by in just a few hundred years and they are left whimpering, "But we were here first! Pay at least some attention to us! Please???"

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Correct so far. Absolutely false.Evolution relies on selection pressure acting on populations.In any given population some individuals reproduce more successfully, and some less so. This, looked at over long spans of time or many generations, adequately accounts for all the effects you are trying to explain.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The value of a theory in science is that it explains the relevant data better than any other theory, and that it allows successful predictions to be made, leading to additional data. By definition a scientific theory is the current best explanation for a given dataset.Your "theory" does none of these things. It is an idea, or at best an hypothesis.It does not explain relevant data better than the theory of evolution. It seems, in fact, to be contradicted by much of the data.In order for your ideas to be taken seriously you need to show where they offer better explanatory power than existing theories, and that they are not contradicted by any significant data. And you also need to have a series of successful predictions.Finally, you need to present your "theory" to peer-reviewed journals in the relevant fields. The internet is not a good substitute.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

One thing you might consider is that the farther back you go, the more common ancestors you have.Do the math and see what I mean.If we followed your line of reasoning we would have far more ancestors than we've ever had living people in a surprisingly short time. While the role of epigenetics is still being explored, natural selection seems to have served quite adequately to eliminate the unsuitable extremes over time. It is unlikely that it will be entirely, or even largely eliminated from the theory by future discoveries concerning epigenetics.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

In science a theory is the end result, the highest level of attainment, while what you have come up with is but the beginning. Your problem reflects the differing meanings of the word "theory" in science vs. general usage. This is not a void in the language, but the result of sloppy usage on the part of the general public.Perhaps "speculation" would be a more apt term for your ideas?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That belief is contradicted by empirical evidence. Most YECs would not even agree with your belief.

The Late Heavy Bombardment (commonly referred to as the lunar cataclysm, or LHB) is a period of time approximately 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago (Ga)...

There is no evidence that people were cavorting around 4 billion years ago. We do have good evidence that the earliest true humans were around about 200,000 years ago. Your belief is off by a factor of several orders of magnitude. There is no empirical evidence that accelerated radioactive decay of the type you are relying on occurs. Rather the evidence is against you.So, of your several statements you appear to be wrong in each case.As far as college, I wish you well. But be careful, as "Belief gets in the way of learning."

Most YECs believe in dates in the 6-10k range, with a few playing silly games with dating who prefer older dates.Your dates are outside of the range preferred by most YECs.