Evidence, data, observations, and facts (leading to theories) which support natural phenomena, and the lack thereof for non-natural explanations.
See, it does not matter for the theory of evolution what happened prior to the start (creation, abogenesis), as evolution does not deal with that. I know religious folks have a problem with this explanation, but that's the way the theory is stated, and all your protestations cannot change that.
Don't try to pretend that everything we see in the entire realm of creation (nature, if you prefer) is currently satisactorily explained by natural selection, etc. You may argue that ToE has proved satisfactory in enough areas that we are comfortable assuming it will provide a satisfactory explanation in these other areas given time, money, and research. But that's a different thing from what you've said.
Time and again, the objection of the evolutionists on this thread to possible creationist or ID or abrupt appearance explanations of a given part of creation is not that ToE explains that particular phenomenon better, but rather that non-naturalistic explanations are unscientific.
If you don't understand the distinction, I'd be happy to re-explain it as necessary.
See, it does not matter for the theory of evolution what happened prior to the start (creation, abogenesis), as evolution does not deal with that. I know religious folks have a problem with this explanation, but that's the way the theory is stated, and all your protestations cannot change that.
See, you guys have repeated this countless times, and I've indicated I don't know how many times that I understand exacatly what you are claiming, and I've provided a detailed and specific rebuttal. If you don't understand the distinction between an explanation and a protestation, that's your problem.
And don't claim you're the one who needs patience here... gimme a break.
One more time. I know "evolution" does not deal with the origin of life. But Naturalism and Gradualism do care very much about the origin of life. And Naturalism is related to the Theory of Evolution. You can argue all you want that ToE led to Naturalism, but every historical fact we have tells us that it was the opposite way around.
Again, suppose we get to a point that evolution can explain all of the biological world except one particular, important part. Suppose a non-evolutionist suggests a non-evolutionary explanation for that biological phenomenon. What's the evolutionist's response? That evolution explains it better based on "evidence, data, observations, and facts (leading to theories)"? Obviously not, since it has yet to do so. The objection would be that it is a violation of Naturalism.