Prediction is a double play with ToE. Because we see like organisms, we establish that their genetic makeup is like to.
We OBSERVE that their genetic makeup is similar.
I'm not sure what 'double play' means in this context, but until you define it, I'll work from the theory that it's a brush-off. I predict, based on my theory, that you will fail to define it. I also predict that you will continue to brush-off the predictive power of ToE, even though you've got no evidence to refute this predictive power.
It doesn't really mean anything, except that the 'double-play serving as a puffery agent to make ToE more appealing.
Noting that ToE has proven predictive power is not puffery. Please understand words before you use them.
Can it predict that the world is more then 6000-12000 years old? No. It needs it to be more to be correct. God is the venue, not theory.
No, because geochronology is not part of the theory of evolution. However, there is a mountain of geologic evidence that the earth is billions of years old, and the theory of evolution fits well into this framework.
Building strawmen isn't as effective in debate as it is in corn farming.
What point are you making, besides ToE clearly being subjective to it's own hypothesis? God did not mislead us. We did. That is the audacious turn of Christian Deism, to amount God's Word to scientific theory.
The point I am making is that unless God is deceptive, earth is old and the universe is older. You understand this, you simply don't like it. That portion of my response did not deal with ToE, so your insertion of it into your response is a pretty feeble red herring. Address the content of my posts, not the content you'd like my posts to have.
Where, specifically? What did I build?
How about ToE using assumption to base a workable idea into their canon? That is what it is. After all, it is theory, not fact, and many people have dumbed themselves down to thinking it is more. Perhaps out of uncertainty, or maybe even fear of being humiliated by their belief.
Again, this portion of my response in no way addressed or is reliant upon ToE. It deals exclusively with the geologic column. Please try to address the content of my posts, not the content you'd like my posts to have.
Now, please tell me how observing crinoid fossils in Mississippian limestone, and making note of this, involves an assumption.
The desire lies in thinking it must be part of a system.
At what point does walking up to a rock, finding a shell encased in that rock, and saying 'Yo dude, come check out this shell!' require the assumption of a system? Observation is simply that: observation.
ToE just provides unrealistic explanations for what it cannot explain and somehow, by which all means hurts my soul as fellow human being, becomes noted as likely just because a bunch of PhD's salaries depend on it.
This portion of my response in no way addressed or is reliant upon ToE. It deals exclusively with observing the physical location of fossils in sedimentary rocks. Please try to address the content of my posts, not the content you'd like my posts to have.
I don't know, can you prove it without assuming the initial conditions of everything that must be exactly compliant for it to work?
Yep.
Can you prove that they existed in those times? No.
Non-avian dinosaur bones and trace fossils indicative of non-avian dinosaur activity are found it terrestrial and marine deposits from the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous. Their existence in these strata is the proof that they existed when these strata were deposited. Is this difficult to understand? You're basically asking me to prove that a refrigerator with a gallon of milk in it contains milk.
You can only assume that God made everything 'brand new'. That is, we were born in an abyssal of fiery geologic hell.
I'm not at all certain what you mean by this, but it doesn't appear to be grammatically or conceptually coherent. Could you please clarify?
In other words, dating things cannot determine the actual age of anything. They only gauge the duration of particle movement.
This argument is nonsensical. Even so, when we 'gauge the duration of particle movement', we get 'durations' that are consistent with an ancient earth and universe.
BTW, geologic ages are a relative dating system, and were defined well before absolute dating was developed. Their validity in no way depends on the accuracy of absolute dating, so your entire argument is a strawman built either from dishonesty or ignorance. I won't ask you which it is.
It is this kind of logic that has made people ignorant to the Bible.
False.
The fact is, they must exist during those times for ToE to be correct. Those times do not have to exist because they are there.
Still false.
Circularity. That is what science has inflicted to the average theist.
Provide an example of circularity in a scientific argument, and cite the source you drew this argument from.
Lie to yourself if you will, but you failed completely at all the questions. All you did was give a visualization of someone observing things. Quite the ridiculous argument, actually.
How many times do I have to say it? I did not expect that people would actually try to answer those questions
. Is it not clear that they cannot be answered in light of Deism?
Your questions are based on a wholesale misunderstanding and mischaracterization of science and its postulates. This has been pointed out to you by more than one scientist, yet you continue to trumpet these questions as being the ultimate refutation of science.
You're boxing with a strawman but acting like you're beating up Manny Pacquiao. Nobody's falling for it.