No this is not instability at all. It is about the veracity of dating methods that one accepts. Old earth creationists take the most liberal view possible of the bible. In turn any less liberal views are also in alignment with the bible.
Yes, some creationists claim that the methods work, others don't. That is instability. Even worse, they can't even agree on an age of the Earth within 4 billion years. That is MAJOR instability. Whenever you give an age of the Earth all I need to do is quote other creationists who completely disagree with you. If that is not instability, then evolution does not have instability either.
Same again. Mega or global still aligns with the bible. This is not instability.
Yes, it is. How can a local and a global flood both align with the Bible? They are contradictory. Either a place on the Earth was flooded or it wasn't. Creationists can't decide amongst themselves. That is instability by your own criteria.
Your instability is noted by one theory of evolution that does not provide consistent data.
Then all I have to show is that creationists produce inconsistent data. I have already shown that with the dating methods that different creationists use. Some date the Earth to 6,000 years while others date the Earth to 4.5 billion years. That is a difference of more than 4 billion years. That is inconsistency, and that is instability.
I have already spoken to this as being the one and only chsnge in thinking as opposed to the millions you have over just one theoretical assertion.
False. It is one of many. Creationism is the most unstable model there is.
The major prediction that unites all creationists is there will be no convincing demonstration of evolution in the fossil record, the observed evidence.
So what features must a fossil have in order to be convincing?
The other creationists prediction that supports the first is that kinds will be found to suddenly appear in the fossil record. eg Cambrian, mankind.
How do you determine if a fossil has suddenly appeared or not? What is the creationist method for determining this?
These predictions are stable and validated, for all biblical creationists. The differences are only a matter of details to be worked out. This is not instability it is about not having all the answers, just like you lot.
You forgot the predictions that differ amongst creationists that produce instability in the creationist model, such as the coverage of a flood and the age of the Earth.
Of course, I could use your excuses to brush away your criticisms of evolution. What unites scientists is that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. The differences of which fossils are direct ancestors or cousins are details that are being worked out. See, no instability.
I support the most liberal view of the bible. If more literal interpretations proove valid I am happy to align.
Perfect example of how unstable creationism is.
For example more and more science is supporting a global flood.
Such as?
That is what the scientific mind does, Loudmouth. This is opposed to evolutionary science that invents non plausible scenarios to save itself from falsification.
Says the person offering magical poofing as a mechanism.
The only grand claim that creationists make is that there is a deity, a spirit, that has the power to perform amazing feats.
If only they had evidence to back it up, or a stable model to test.
I think God creating life forms fully functional is not as far fetched as putting human feet on a curved fingered ape, nor suggesting dinosaurs had modern bird feet.
Talk about a biased worldview. At least we can show that humans, apes, dinosaurs, and birds actually exist.
The fossil evidence, the observed evidence, supports creationist paradigms in general. The rest is detail yet to be established conclusively and does not amount to instability.
What features must a fossil have in order to support evolution and falsify creationism?
Of course the biggest point is that there is no evidence for evolution at all that is observed.
So what evidence, if found, would evidence evolution?
