What is needed for creationists to connect evidence to valid conclusions

You are confusing the source. Evolution Scientists did not create those images. Those are not scientific charts, they are cartoons.I don't doubt that they may well be the thing folk notice, but that is simply a matter of ignorance. That is not how science teaches the descent.A scientific chart will show where the questions lie, where we are unsure, where questions remain. It will also include minor information like names and identification. Something like this.Part of the problem IS ignorance in the general populus. They don't have a clue what the Theory of Evolution actually says.So the question is "What is there about the evolution of modern man and the other modern apes from some earlier ancestor that you find hard to accept?"

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

TheDarin Please present the title and authors of the book you are claiming show this if you can. Well you can hardly make such a declaration without understanding what evolution is. The watchmaker argument is not even wrong. You are bold to make claims on something you do not understand and even bolder to make claims of evidence you possess for your stance that you have yet to present. You are fond off saying such things. Please tell us what you think Intelligent Design is and what makes you think that you have a better argument in support than those that before you have tried?

Said imagery representing the claim of human evolution is more accurately known in creationist circles as 'evolutionary iconography'. It perfectly depicts what evolutionists believe: apes somehow morphed into men. It is the ultimate blasphemy against God and clearly indicates to any objective person that evolutionists are capable of anything.Iconography shows the degree of hate and anger that evolutionists have towards God and the Bible. Like I said these persons are capable of anything.Ray

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.

Or maybe, just maybe "The Paper!!!!!!".

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

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

Misrepresentation is a bad idea, it indicates the inability to refute.I have over 3000 posts - so you very well know my views.Ray

my troll post for the day: 2x dx= x²+ c

---

This is just reverse psychology, which, in this case, is expressing interest in my work while telling me to hurry up. I am working as fast as I can and I thank you for expressing interest in reading my argument refuting evolution.Ray

Yes, it's true--we can make assertions AND provide evidence for them!Shocks the creationist conscience, does it not?

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

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

math = inability to refute!

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.

i know i'm interested.but i also am interested in UFOs, nessie, timecube, and bigfoot.though i do recall a while back, i'd pester ray about every time he made a post. then he disappeared for a while. ray, i'm still curious -- i thought you'd canned it. when can i look forward to reading it?

---

Oh my stars!This is the first I've heard of any paper.Ray, when will it be forth coming?