OK. This is something I’m interested in understanding, as I enjoy patterns. I will have to respond later. Too many things on the brain right now.
I understand it is a hypothesis. It answers why things look the way that they do. I see it as similar to big bang theory - it’s wrong but it’s got a few things going for it that are.correct. 
Someone who doesn’t have a different worldview wouldn’t have much reason to question it.
How do you know that it’s wrong? It seems that you have an a priori assumption, one that can’t be falsified by any sort of evidence.
If your worldview is to follow the evidence then you would conclude the Big Bang is correct. That seems to be what is causing friction in many of these conversations, a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.
Yes 
Yes. - I have better evidence that I follow. 
Just remember the difference between assertions and evidence.
Then there’s absolutely no point in arguing with you or presenting evidence. Would you agree? (Incidentally, I find the constant resort to emojis annoying, if you care.)
That’s a weird position for a few reasons, one being that the Big Bang is often cited by some Christian “scholars” as evidence in favour of God.
What’s the point in understanding the science if it’s all untrue?
That approaches trolling: posting to provoke a reaction, in this case annoyance.
I do characterize it as trolling, @thoughtful. Please stop.
I completely understand (and appreciate) the conviction to follow what you believe the Bible says. However, I believe it would be for the best to avoid long conversations and requests for evidence just to finish with an admission that the provided evidence is meaningless to you.
I apologize. I was having fun. I enjoy taking life less seriously than you do and was teasing you, not trying to annoy you. But I’ll stop.
Quite the opposite. It is meaningful to me. I still learn something, even when I think it won’t change my mind. I’ve shared quite a bit of evidence that these same responders demanded about my faith or my view of science. I didn’t expect much of it would change their minds. Was it meaningless to them too? Maybe - I don’t know.
Curiosity is quite a driver. How can humans be so diverse in their outlook? It is, I suggest, normal to think everyone is like me and it takes an effort to accept that plurality of belief exists. The issue then becomes (I hope) how to ensure peaceful coexistence, equality of opportunity, fairness in law, avoidance of political opportunism, misrule by the majority.
But, at the risk of being presumptuous, it appears to me that expectation was based on your projecting your own position onto others, and assuming we had already decided a priori that no evidence could change our views. I don’t actually think that is very fair.
Thank you, I can understand the sentiment. Let me advise you that wrapping up a thread of 400+ responses with “it’s wrong but it’s got a few things going for it that are.correct” is dismissive to those that have engaged in good faith in a long conversation. It is rude behavior, as is intentional irritation.
This is why the Talk.Origins FAQs were created…
I am making the hypothesis that 1000 specific mutations were required to transform a prehuman into a modern human. So in my scenario, if the prehuman population had accumulated millions of mutations by drift but hadn’t accumulated the 1000 specific ones required for the human phenotype, it wouldn’t have given rise to modern man.
Doesn’t sound unreasonable to me.
If the particular (hypothetical) 1000 mutations responsible for turning a non-human ancestor of ours into humans, had not occurred, but instead some other set of mutations had occurred, then Homo sapiens as we know them would not have evolved and instead some other primate species, itself contingent on some set of ~1000 mutations, would have evolved(or gone extinct).
I’m a bit confused by this. Do you think this is some novel idea you are proposing that is not plainly obvious to anyone who has even a smattering of understanding of how evolution works?
Assuming for the sake of the argument that you are right here, ie that other sets of mutations would have given rise to other primate species, isn’t it remarkable that the particular set responsable for the human phenotype occurred, given the absolute singularity of Homo sapiens in the universe?
I think all species are in some sense an absolute singularity, but sure I do think it is remarkable we are here.
Since zircon crystals form during the cooling of magmatic granite, you’re right that you won’t find “native” zircons mixed in with life fossils, if only because life doesn’t colonise molten magma. But that doesn’t mean zircons are only found in or above basement rock. Granitic intrusions into older sedimentary fossil-bearing formations can contain zircons. There are, for example, Cretaceous and later zircon-containing granite dykes and sills intruding into older shale deposits in Myanmar.