Replies

But it was not an X vs Y data plot without data, with an undefined term plotted against an undefined time. Darwin's is a conceptual chart, and he says straight out that it is speculative. Moreover it looks like a good conceptual model, for it predicts the nested hierarchies of interrelatedness that is observed in Molecular Genetic data.

Your X vs Y data plot without data does not conform to any actual data, neither did the presenter of the chart point out that it was speculative, nor did they propose an experiment to fill in the data and confirm their predictions. They just threw up an X vs Y plot with drawn in data, said ‘this is how it is’, it being an undefined term “richness of the geneticals” plotted against an undefined and unmentioned span of time. A Rorschach Creationist ink blot, you see in it what you want to see, but there isn’t anything there.

That this is the creme de la creme of the evidence you present is kind of funny. You can have this if you wish. I will take multiple unrelated conforming and replicable lines of evidence that point to ancient ages of the earth long before mankind, the even older age of the universe, and the interrelatedness of life due to common descent as shown by the fossil record and Molecular Genetics data. I accept this data for much the same reason it is accepted worldwide by people of all different faiths, and for the same reason that it is accepted by most Christians; everyone working in Science worldwide no matter their faith finds the same lines of evidence conform to this model, replication of their results time and time again, worldwide, no matter the theology of the Scientist.