Creation/evolution3

[Thumpalumpacus]

We have theoritical hypostsis based on what has been found.

What is a "hypostsis"? Speak English.

For Macroevolution another more plausible explaination is the fossils attributed to evolution are just an extinct sub-species of a given phila

Except that that doesn't explain Ediacarian lifeforms, nor does it address the point that there is no difference at all between so-called "microevolution" and so-called "macroevolution". Both those terms are terms invented by creationists in order to inject their biases into science.

There is nothing stopping "microevolution" from becoming "macroevolution". There is no mechanism. There is nothing in DNA which says "this far, and nothing more".

Do you disagree? Bring facts.

and for the big bang we have nothing more than observation and theory which again does not fit the defination of empirical evidence.

I hate to break the news to you, but observation is empirical evidence. Go back and look at the definition you yourself linked.

Neither do. And, if you take a step back because neither of these theories can be tested or repeated therefore they do not fit the 'scientific method' (as testing and repeating a process are crutial/what is used to disqualify God.)

I'd suggest you reread Karl Popper (what's that? You haven't read him in the first place? I'm shocked -- shocked, I tell you.) Repeatability is not a requirement of legitimacy. For instance, paleontology is the study of fossils, and it cannot be repeated. However, and this is important, dipshit, so pay attention -- it can make predictions based on past observations.

And you're simply wrong when you say that BB theory cannot be tested: we test it every day when we measure the location of the stars, and note the interstitial expansion of space.

You should study more. Your ignorance is showing.

qualifier you all have been going on about (what seperates Faith from science.) Because the big bang and the theory of marcroevolution do not fit the Scientific method, and because neither can be supported with empirical evidence, both are indeed On the fringes of science and not apart of legitmate science/applied science. Meaning it takes a rather large measure of faith to accept them.

And that means that it's probably a bankrupt ontology.

If you disagree, go jump off a cliff, with faith that you won't fall to your death. Get back to us on the results.

Now God on the other Hand only requires a mustard seed's worth of faith. If one can invest this mustardseed's faith in Him, He will provide the empirical evidence needed to establish and maintain a life time of belief.

That didn't work for me, and it clearly isn't working for you -- otherwise, why do you continue searching for evidence? Clearly, your faith is so weak it needs the support of evidence, which is why you provide links to biased sites, in the hopes of propping up a doddering faith.

You're no different than any other evangelist -- a bunch of hot air, and unwilling to put your money where your mouth is: your claim your faith is comforting, even as your discomfort motivates you to search for evidence.

*Yawn*