Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[Astridhere]

Why don't you find a profile image that is closer to that of the Orang you've been using. Even with without a more accurate comparison, anyone can see that he lacks the canines that even this female has (which would be more pronounced on a male), the saggital crest and the very pronounced brow ridges. His are there, but not nearly as pronounced on our fellow extant apes.
The point I made is that some non human primates today have skulls, particularly skull caps and rhe top of the skull that is more like a human that a chimp.

Therefore many fragments used as evidence for transition could simply be apes that were not chimps

But lets leave aside for the moment that the skull characteristics. Why do you continually avoid addressing his body and how undeniably it belongs to someone in genus Homo?
Sneak Peek at the Hall of Human Origins Exhibit | Photo Gallery | Smithsonian.com

The reason I do not care about the morphology apart from the skull is because neither of us know what the first ape looked like.

Your scientists have already attested that knucklewalking arose independently. Neither of us know for sure what the morphology of the first ape was like. Evos suggest that it all goes back to a squirrell like creature. These do not have long arms comparatively. Meaning at some point in time, according to evolutionists, creatures did not have long arms. Perhaps it was an in kind adaptation.

The biggest reason I do not use the rest of thebody is because theorising and comaparisons agains something that one has no clue about leads to trouble. This is displayed in by the plethora of human ancestrors that have been cast aside, not leastof which was the initial thought that mankind evolved from chimpanzee like creatures.

So basically the most apparent discontinuity between man and beast, is not if it is bipedal, as chimps can be bipedal now, it is not in the arm or leg proportions because adaptations change these, as does diet.

The afarensis skull is completely ape like. Lluc is a 12myo ape that also had reduced facial features. In the days when man and ape lived side by side before the fall, they may well have looked different than todays varieties, but never were given human intelligence and reasoning ability.

The most reliable method, given I do not know what the first ape looked like and neither do evolutionists, is to use the skull and its connections to intelligence and reasoning ability because that is what being in the image of God is all about and what makes us a different creation to beast.

There are few non human primate ancestors. Very few. Why do you think that is? Is there a plausible explanation for this and for why so many so called humam relos are found but few for all the non human primates about today.

The erectus skull is nothing like a human skull at all. It does not appear transistional, it is not in the human range, it does appear to be some sort of ape.

The better point to demonstrate is that evolutionists have very few direct human ancestors now, possibly including erectus, that have been classed as cousins. Why? Because they do not clad with mankind. So scientists have provided the refute re their connection to makind themselves.

All that is left is erectus, and he is now also being challenged. So even if erectus is human, still you have no firm connection of erectus to any other ape ancestor. So creationists of both views still can say the evidence for ancestry to apes is seriously lacking.

 

[Split Rock]

I see creationism as more stable.

Not only stable, but down right Fossilized.

I see that most creationists do not need to change their view with increasing data.

Or better data. Why would they "need" to change? You continue to insist that "change is bad."

It all points to creation and it supports creationist paradigms without the need for additional and non plausible scenarios to explain it.

Tell us all one more time what data would NOT support creationist paradigms. I keep asking but you don't answer. Wonder why.....

Mostly we are warned about the reasonings of mankind.

Like how mankind interprets books written by mankind? Or maybe, you don't actually reason when you interpret scripture... that is a distinct possibility...

Therefore if I have to choose which view to have faith in, I will choose the men that showed amazing scientific insights beyond their day as evidence of a divine author that knew what he was doing, rather than men that produce an unstable evolutionary paradigm.

If self-correcting = "unstable." How do you determine when you are wrong about scripture, again?

 

[AV1611VET]

Substantially. I think you meant to say the Bible has not changed substantially since it was written. There is emmense proof it has changed.

Proof is for spelling bees.

 

[Nostromo]

You all sound jealous to me.

You could probably do with your ears cleaning.

 

[sandwiches]

Proof is for spelling bees.

Evasion is for just right for you, dude.

 

[Loudmouth]

The most reliable method, given I do not know what the first ape looked like and neither do evolutionists, is to use the skull and its connections to intelligence and reasoning ability because that is what being in the image of God is all about and what makes us a different creation to beast.

Cranium size is also connected to intelligence, and H. erectus is intermediate between humans and other apes. That makes H. erectus intermediate by the only measure you have allowed.

There are few non human primate ancestors. Very few. Why do you think that is?

Because fossilization is rare and we have searched a very, very tiny fraction of fossil bearing strata.

The erectus skull is nothing like a human skull at all.

So says the person who thinks H. erectus looks more like a female orangutan than H. sapiens. Sorry, but your opinion is clearly biased.

It does not appear transistional,

What features would a fossil need in order to appear transitional in your eyes?

it is not in the human range,

A transitional would necessarily be outside of the human range.

it does appear to be some sort of ape.

Humans are apes.

The better point to demonstrate is that evolutionists have very few direct human ancestors now, possibly including erectus, that have been classed as cousins. Why? Because they do not clad with mankind. So scientists have provided the refute re their connection to makind themselves.

There is no way to determine if any fossil is the ancestor of descendant of any other fossil, barring the recovery of DNA from that fossil. What we can determine is the mixtures of features in these fossils. That is how you determine if a fossil is intermediate or not. At least, that is how honest people do it.

All that is left is erectus, and he is now also being challenged. So even if erectus is human, still you have no firm connection of erectus to any other ape ancestor. So creationists of both views still can say the evidence for ancestry to apes is seriously lacking.

You have already demonstrated that you will not accept any evidence for a transitional fossil, so why do you pretend to have a defensible position?

 

[Nathan Poe]

You all sound jealous to me.

It bugs you that we walk by faith in a Book that has not changed since It was written, rather than walk by sight in books that change with each copyright, doesn't it?

Be nice if you actually followed the book, as opposed to giving it false worship and lip service during times of personal convenience and social status.

But I suppose I ask too much.

 

[mzungu]

You could probably do with your ears cleaning.

This reminds me of an anarchist Graffiti I once saw on a wall in Athens:

"WALLS HAVE EARS, AND EARS HAVE WALLS"!

 

[dad]

Why is it insane that the writers could've exaggerated, made mistakes, misunderstood some things, or flat out lied?
.

Were you there to observe them lying, or making mistakes, or not being inspired of God? No. Act like it.

 

[dad]

Radiometric dating, comparison of ERV's,

All present state in the past belief based. The way that viri transferred was not as it now is unless we had a present state. The way decay exists is a present state feature. You NEED to prove there was this state in the past, NOT first assume it.

The bible wasn't written by men? You want to check that again? Did cats write it?

Only God could be responsible judging by the evidence.

So says the writings of men. Why don't you also claim that Paul Bunyan had a blue ox because somebody wrote it down.

Hey you could claim Darwin farted rose pedals, but you will not have hundreds of holy witnesses and millions of people dying to verify that. This is where you are at. Act like it.

 

[Psudopod]

Astridhere - what part of the criteria for ape do humans not meet? If you continue to persist in saying humans are not apes, I will continue to ask you this question. You haven't answered it yet (though no doubt you'll protest that humans have advanced language skills and intelligence which simply shows you don't understand the question).

 

[driewerf]

You all sound jealous to me.

It bugs you that we walk by faith in a Book that has not changed since It was written, rather than walk by sight in books that change with each copyright, doesn't it?

Some disagree.
Conservative Bible Project - Conservapedia

 

[AV1611VET]

It bugs you that we walk by faith in a Book that has not changed since It was written, rather than walk by sight in books that change with each copyright, doesn't it?

Some disagree.

Do they bug you?

 

[Doveaman]

Why would I be jealous of a stance that is based on a book as part of a dogmatic religion incapable of changing in the face of contradictory evidence?

There is no contradictory evidence against the Bible. That's why it never changes.

The contradictory evidence is against your interpretation of it (assuming you ever read it).

The whole reason that science is worthy of consideration is that it does change when the evidence requires it to.

Science is consistently changing because it is constantly facing contradictory evidence.

You guys just can't get it right.

 

[Doveaman]

All present state in the past belief based. The way that viri transferred was not as it now is unless we had a present state. The way decay exists is a present state feature. You NEED to prove there was this state in the past, NOT first assume it.

Their whole theory is built upon an assumption(s) and they expect us to ignore the historical records in favor of an assumption(s).

 

[AV1611VET]

Their whole theory is built upon an assumption(s) and they expect us to ignore the historical records in favor of an assumption.

Uniformitarianism is like being married for 30 years, then expecting to fit in to your wedding clothes --

 

[mzungu]

Uniformitarianism is like being married for 30 years, then expecting to fit in to your wedding clothes --

Hey I can still fit into my wedding suit. So where's my prize

 

[Nathan Poe]

Science is consistently changing because it is constantly facing contradictory evidence.

Religion stays static because it avoids evidence.

You guys just can't get it right.

You guys are afraid to try.

 

[Doveaman]

Uniformitarianism is like being married for 30 years, then expecting to fit in to your wedding clothes --

Especially when the universe keeps expanding beyond light speed.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Uniformitarianism is like being married for 30 years, then expecting to fit in to your wedding clothes --

Literalism is like having a badly-tailored 30-year old wedding suit, and claiming it's just fine because you remember having a third arm and one leg six inches longer than the other back then...

... or at least, you claim to remember, because it must be true -- you have the suit to prove it!