Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?

The evolutionary model is just such a thing. It is supported by so much evidence that it has an extremely high probability of being true."Proven" is used, technically, in math where things actually can be proven with a 100 % chance of being right. What you need is evidence. Actually any evidence at all. None is what you have supplied.What you need here is evidence that shows that it could NOT have taking life through it's development over the last 3 billion years. All the evidence we have says it can and did.Oh, by the way, we HAVE that evidence, 1,000,000's and millions of bits of it. You, on the other hand seem to be stunningly short of it.

Wrong!
As others have been, with moderate patience so far, pointing out to you you have no idea what you are talking about. You know nothing of the science involved or the evidence behind it. Your ignorance makes no dents in the science.

Since you've moved back in time to this different topic and don't want to discuss biological evolution anymore does that mean you've decided that we are right on all the rest. That is, you agree that once DNA was in place, however that happened, the evolutionary model best fits the facts we have at hand.If you haven't finished with the area that there is such overwhelming evidence for (approximately none of which you are aware of) then what good does it do to move onto another area?If you looked around this site you'd find that almost everyone here agrees that, while there are a large number of good clues about your question, there isn't any definitive answer. So let's all agree that this is a "don't know the answer (yet)" area. Any problems with that?So we have two areas of agreement:
1) We all don't know exactly how DNA formed in the first place.
2) We have one very good explanation for the development of life since then.Right?

Then explain why there is lots of occurrences of eggs long, long, long before we find any occurrences of chickens.John, you can believe all you want. But if you choose to believe things which have hard evidence showing them to be false then you make the whole package of your beliefs look utterly foolish.This is why some of the strongest opponents of creationism are not "evil evolutionists" as you think but rather are devote Christians who hate to be associated with people who tarnish their beliefs with obvious utter nonsense.You'd do your religion more good if you actually educated yourself just a little.BTW: you are, I think, right that the video presented does not show the origin of DNA. You have chosen to ignore my comment on the origins of life.It seems you can't stick to one line of reasoning at a time.

I don't know the details (and would be interested to hear more about it) but I would be very surprised if there was a single physicist on any nuclear power sites.There might be some involved with firms like GE that do the engineering and building but even that doesn't seem to be necessary at the actual plant design stage even.I would hope that GE (and others ) have a team of physicists and engineers doing more basic research into new reactor designs since the one currently used was borrowed from military (subs) applications and apparently shouldn't have been used.

John 10 10 seems to have a common misunderstandings:Namely that "observation" has to me "looking at with your eyes".In actual fact we "observe", in that sense, almost nothing. In fact, what we personally "see" (let's use that word for being there and looking at something) is enormously limited and inaccurate.Therefore you generally don't want information that is just from seeing. You want to observe (in the sense of capture, record, measure etc.) with better tools than your eyes.He also seems confused about past events and "observing" them. Everything you "see" or "observe" happened in the past. Sometimes only nanoseconds ago however.We "observe" things that happened in the past by looking for the effects that ripple out from them. If something is in the room with you it is, perhaps, the light coming to you. If it is down the block out of sight it might be the sound it makes that gets to you a second or two later (you are "hearing" into the past).Most of the time, and I mean the vast majority of the time, we find other things to "observe". I "observe" the mess in the kitchen this morning and conclude that my son was up in the middle of the night again. If I can't have this kind of "observation" then I can conclude almost nothing about anything.As others have noted not using this precludes most unwitnessed-crime investigations.We "observe" the chain of fossil forms that are as clear as foot prints of an size 14 Adidas sneaker at a crime scene. With this observation (and many 1,000s of others) we arrive at the most reasonable conclusion we can.He also (and you too) may be a bit careless with the word "fact". Most of us, most of the time think something is a fact or it is not a fact. Totally binary, totally black and white.This is most often not the case. The mess in the kitchen might, some day, be due to a break-in. It is just so very, very likely to be true that we don't bother with nuances and call it a fact.Scientific papers are about the only place where this nuance is commonly observed. They almost never state something categorically as fact.Somethings may be only a pretty good guess -- say with a better than 50% chance of being true. Other things are pretty bloody sure of being true -- say 98 % and most of us, most of the time, would start to call it a fact.The chains connecting water creatures to land creatures are solid enough to meet any common idea of the word "fact". The likelihood of the broad process being true is much higher than 98%. (Details need more work).So we can observe the past, just as directly as we do most things in life. We can arrive at a degree of certainty so high that, while less than 100%, is still higher than for most things we would all be comfortable with calling "fact"

I have a BSc in physics. That does not, not nearly, make me a research scientist. Any number of years running a plant does not make me one bit more a physicist.This sounds exactly like a technician to me but I'd want to know what is meant my "nuclear experience".As Rrhain pointed out you probably don't want a research physicist running the plant anyway.

Hi again Mike, glad to see you again. Over and over again we see this "alternate explanation" line. We ask to see how this explains the facts at hand. We never get an answer.There is no alternate explanation! It just doesn't exist. If you think there is a new thread titled "The Creationist Alternate Explanation/Interpretation" would be a good place to show it.Remember it has to actually be an explanation! It actually has to explain the facts available. It is, of course, a big job. But you can show it a little at a time with appropriate references to the details as supplied by creationist "research" organizations.Given that this explanation exists it is odd that no one has supplied it yet. Maybe you can just explain that?

I don't understand the point you are making here. I don't see how it applies to the topic at hand. Perhaps you can elaborate a lot more. "Inbuilt" in exactly what way? How is this not evolution?You seem very sure of what you say so I'm sure you are prepared to back it up. lol