Question for the theist

[xr34p3rx]

seriously john, you really need to point out what you havent. Answer the following questions one by one okay? if you keep denying evidence but dont define what evidence is to you, then we cant understand each other and its just a big cat fight.

I shouldn't need to define evidence for you to understand that the drawing you posted ain't it.

yes you do, in order for me to know what god you believe in, you must define him/her/it.

1) What is evidence to you? Define evidence.

Fulfilled risky falsifiable predictions.

predictions? does science not predict things? need to look that up buddy

2) Do you accept or deny evolution and or creationism as a whole, or cherry pick what you like about the theory and the belief (creationism, since it isnt a theory).

I've already stated that I don't think either is provable.

despite the evidence that science has given, just proves your ignorance...

3) Do you believe in intelligent design? Hence you made it seem like you did in a previous post and since you said you accept certain things from both sides.

Specify what you mean by "believe in." How is this question different from #3?

its not semantics dude, believe = accept something as true.

4) What do you accept about evolution?
5) What do you accept about creationism?
6) How do you interpret evolution and evidence based on what you agree about it?
7) How do you interpret creationism since you also cherry pick it?

Please, it would take hours or days to answer these.

then give me a brief overview, that would help

until you answer these straight forward, there is going to be mass confusion between us as it already seems, dont you agree?

Not really. It doesn't seem very confusing to me. You made a claim which was demonstrably false and you want to switch the topic to my beliefs because you can't support your own. Not confusing at all - actually pretty standard.

demonstrably false? ok then... prove it wrong yourself. science already proved it probable, you are ignorant, prove it wrong then.... go on... do it

And i also never said anything about morphing, i have no idea where you got that from.

Not morphing, morphology - I got it from the stuff I read about evolution. It's a common term in evolution and in simple terms refers to body structure. When you speak of trees based on fossils, you're speaking of morphology, or phenotype.

i emphasized that, fossils are on the animal side, and genetics are on both sides of the evidence, and someone else also rephrased it better to, both sides lead to the same conclusion.