Could this help with creationism v evolution?

Is it, however, a testable hypothesis?

Well as a creation scientist, spiritual archaeologist and religious palaeontologist i can assure you that I would consider it very wrong to call other disciplines of science moronic. You see, as an educator I get more out of intensifying ones intellect than I would poo pooing belief.

f*ck creationists

Classic! I nearly spat my cocoa out!

Lol

The discovery of the God Particle/ Higgs Besom has swept away the evolutionist argument.

Yes. protons, electrons, neutrons and a large amount of morons lol.

No. We don't win friends and influence people by insulting them with childish labels

". . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed." 1

1.Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Origins (New York, John Wiley,), p. 300.

Don't whine at me. I'm not the biologist that wrote this. See the work cited and write your own peer reviewed article. The only thing you need is a Ph.D. in biology.

So what?

What is the very first thing that started everything. Because you evolutionist don't seem to agree on much besides "wallah here we are" over millions and millions of years.

Logically, the origin of nature required supernaturalism since nature can't self-create itself due no reality of nature before the emergence of nature. Creationism deals with supernaturalism.

Wonderful!

Prove it.

Your question tested it and some of your answers give strong evidence for it, esp. the one that refers to Creationism as a "discipline of science".

DANK.