Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[Jazer]

Religion is faith and faith is not physical but spiritual.
Science and politics are physical. Mix the two and you have big problems.

The Bible is made up of the History or genealogy of real physical people.

 

[driewerf]

Why then, does London have one of, if not THE, biggest mosques in Europe?

Because Mulsims do not form the majority of the people. And because even within the muslim community only the fundamenalists reject evolution (Ahrun Yahyah and the like).

 

[Nathan Poe]

The Bible is made up of the History or genealogy of real physical people.

As well as the stories and mythology of not-so-real, mythological people.

 

[mzungu]

The Bible is made up of the History or genealogy of real physical people.

Yes it does refer to people because without people there is no religion but the Bible does not ask us to worship people but GOD, and GOD is spiritual!

 

[Doveaman]

Certainly not typical of creationists. You guys were wrong, and later you realized you were wrong, but won't accept that you were wrong. Now you claim ignoring you were wrong is a guide to "The Truth."

So are you saying scientists and creationists are all alike.

 

[AV1611VET]

According to polls conducted in the US; most Americans believe in creationism, whereas in Europe it is the opposite:

Why then, does London have one of, if not THE, biggest mosques in Europe?

Because even Muslims who are not fundamentalists, accept evolution.

If this is the answer you want to stick with, then I'm going to pass on accepting that chart.

Unless you're talking about atheistic Muslims, Muslims are TEs.

My whole point is that, sans atheism, the Arab world and the Jewish world are at least theistic evolutionists, meaning they are creationists.

So your point -- that in Europe, creationists are a rarer commodity -- can take a hike.

 

[Astridhere]

But....religion is NOT based on evidence! I think we confuse the two here...Apples meet oranges!

I do not think one needs evidence to have faith. Many uneducated people believe in both creation and evolution just on faith. However it just so happens that the scientific evidence and data is more supportive of a biblical creation than evolution, and that is a plus.

 

[AV1611VET]

However it just so happens that the scientific evidence and data is more supportive of a biblical creation than evolution, and that is a plus.

Then what is your opinion of an atheist who honestly believes he would become a believer if he saw this evidence and data himself?

 

[Astridhere]

I'd really like an evolutionist to explain something to me.

This is Ardi

You can see the short thumb and very human like hand. Ardi is dated to 4.4mya and does not appear to have curved fingers

Then below is Lucy

Lucy has curved ape fingers and is dated to 3.2mya. Lucy and other afarensis were not found with feet and only a few hand fragments. The feet were sketched in as a response to the Laetoli footprints. Up until then afarensis was thought to still have ape feet.

Then there is this Australopithecus sediba hand below that displays once again a long thumb dated to 1.9mya. Some ankle bones were also found demonstrating ape like features.

Direct ancestor of Homo genus? Fossils show human-like hand, brain and pelvis in early hominin


How could a reasearcher describe these fingers as human like, when clearly they are not human like at all? Sediba's skull looks similar to Turkana Boy's skull and Sediba has a small brain capacity of 420cc.
Australopithecus sediba paved the way for Homo species, new studies suggest

Now Turkana Boy was not found with either hands or feet and is dated to 1.5mya, and other erectus dating from 1.8mya. Forgetting about assumptions and just looking at the evidence you have of feet and hands in the fossil record there appears to be no reason to think that Turkana Boy and other erectus also had similar feet and hands to Sediba. Clearly if Sediba at 1.9mya had ape like traits in her feet, then it is unlikely that Afarensis could have more human feet than sediba at 3.2mya.

Now we know Ardi, Lucy and Erectus are now challenged as direct human ancestors. However, as much as I disagree with evolutionists, I still try to see what evolutionists see in the evidence.

Why would an evolutionary researcher suggest Sediba is in the human line, when quite clearly, the hands appear even less human than evolutionists think Ardi's hands were?

Also why would evolutionists not credit similar Sediba style ape feet and hands to erectus dated around the same age? Do you really believe that in around 200,000-500,000 years Sediba's ape hand could have evolved into a fully modern hand with a reduced thumb as well as the assumed modern feet in Turkana Boy?

All this is on the backdrop of finding the Laetoli fully human footprints dated to 3.7 million years ago, which of course proves to me that mankind was here before any of these supposed intermediates.

I seriously believe there is much data that supports creation and discredits evolution. However I would be interested to hear what sense evolutionists make of this data and if they agree that sediba may be in the human line.

 

[Astridhere]

Then what is your opinion of an atheist who honestly believes he would become a believer if he saw this evidence and data himself?

The easiest thing for an atheist to do is to ignore discrediting data and hope it will resolve itself in the fullness of time, as with out God there can be no other answer for an atheist apart from life having evolved either on earth or elsewhere.

 

[AV1611VET]

I seriously believe there is much data that supports creation and discredits evolution.

What are 'bones' and 'creation' doing in the same post?

The creation has nothing to do with bones, which came much later, and had nothing whatsoever to do with it (the creation).

 

[mzungu]

If this is the answer you want to stick with, then I'm going to pass on accepting that chart.

AV the chart is accurate. Do not confuse your perception of religion to the perception other Christians have worldwide.

Unless you're talking about atheistic Muslims, Muslims are TEs.

No such thing as Atheistic Muslims. What you fail to understand is that in Europe and much of the world Christians and Muslims see religion as something spiritual. In most countries worldwide evolution is taught in schools. This does in no way create any conflict with religion as the way religion is perceived is very different to the way Americans see it.

My whole point is that, sans atheism, the Arab world and the Jewish world are at least theistic evolutionists, meaning they are creationists.

If you mean by God creating the first single celled creature that gave rise to all living things then yes; But creationism as you believe it to be is not what the vast majority of Christians in Europe believe in.

So your point -- that in Europe, creationists are a rarer commodity -- can take a hike.

Absolutely not. I was citing facts and not personal opinions. Everyone must be free to worship and believe what he likes.

 

[Split Rock]

So are you saying scientists and creationists are all alike.

Your replies are just getting poorer and poorer. You are not even trying anymore, are you?

Creationists and scientists were alike in believing in creationism, since there was no alternative and because it was the historical default. Scientists determined creationism was wrong, and accepted that it was wrong. They replaced creationism with a theories that was grounded in evidence, rather than fanciful interpretation of scripture. Creationists, on the other hand, are quite aware that according to sciecne creationism is wrong.. they all know that scientists have concluded that the earth is very old, and we share common ancestry with other life on earth. They choose to reject what we have learned via science and instead continue to believe in creationism. Even worse, they claim it is "The Truth."

 

[Astridhere]

AV1611VET says..

"What are 'bones' and 'creation' doing in the same post?"

The creation has nothing to do with bones, which came much later, and had nothing whatsoever to do with it (the creation). "

My quote function is not working, so I have replied as such. Sorry!

I'm sorry but I do not understand your reply.

Quite plainly, I am disputing the thread topic by demonstrating that indeed there is plenty of evidence and data that supports biblical creation as well as plenty of data that discredits evolution.

I have presented evidence of the ape hand of sediba that demonstrates a very long thumb in comparison to Ardi, 4,4mya, whom is depicted as having a much more human thumb than a direct ancestor dated to 1.9mya.

A dilemma for evolutionists, it appears, unless you are able to defend the data in evolutionary terms.

As for me, I am fine. I have produced data by evolutionary researchers of fully human footprints, Laetoli dated to 3.7 million years, which could not belong to a 3.5ft curved fingered ape, that places mankind before any of these supposed ancestors. Mankind predates any of the supposed intermediates. You see this is supplying data and using plausible explanations to interpret the data in creationists terms.

The discreditation of evolution is another avenue of revealing the non plausible scenario of interpreting the data, the footprints, as belonging to a 3.5ft, curved fingered creature that is no longer seen as being a human ancestor.

The same data, different interpretations. One is non plausible the other is plausible. My point. The data actually supports the creationists paradigms better than evolutionary ones and this is just one example.

Additionally my earlier post today requests evolutionists to explain the mystery of the Sediba long thumb given Ardis is much more human like though 2.4myo, the likeness of australopithecus sediba skull looking very much like Turkana Boy and small brained, and if evolutionists accept Sediba as being a direct human ancestor given the obviously ape and tiny hand with a ridiculously long thumb that has been found.

All these are very fair questions given the thread topic.

 

[Astridhere]

Your replies are just getting poorer and poorer. You are not even trying anymore, are you?

Creationists and scientists were alike in believing in creationism, since there was no alternative and because it was the historical default. Scientists determined creationism was wrong, and accepted that it was wrong. They replaced creationism with a theories that was grounded in evidence, rather than fanciful interpretation of scripture. Creationists, on the other hand, are quite aware that according to sciecne creationism is wrong.. they all know that scientists have concluded that the earth is very old, and we share common ancestry with other life on earth. They choose to reject what we have learned via science and instead continue to believe in creationism. Even worse, they claim it is "The Truth."

I guess you will have no problem replying to my post with some plausible explanations re recent data on Sediba etc. You should also be able to speak as to why I and other creationists can produce plausible explanations of the data that align with creationism while evolutionists appear to be unable to.

 

[sfs]

The same data, different interpretations. One is non plausible the other is plausible. My point. The data actually supports the creationists paradigms better than evolutionary ones and this is just one example.

I asked you before, but you didn't answer: what creationist paradigm(s) are you talking about? Since they contradict one another wildly, I don't see how any data set could support all of them, so which are you claiming support for? And please be more specific about how these hand fossils support that paradigm: if creationism of your favorite flavor is true, what kind of fossil should we be expecting to find? Why, under this paradigm, should we be finding any fossils at all that have a mosaic of human and nonhuman features?

 

[Davian]

AV1611VET says..

"What are 'bones' and 'creation' doing in the same post?"

The creation has nothing to do with bones, which came much later, and had nothing whatsoever to do with it (the creation). "

My quote function is not working, so I have replied as such. Sorry!

I'm sorry but I do not understand your reply.

Quite plainly, I am disputing the thread topic by demonstrating that indeed there is plenty of evidence and data that supports biblical creation as well as plenty of data that discredits evolution.
<snip>

What I find interesting is that AV says that there is *no* evidence for 'creation' and does go on about it. You are claiming that there is plenty of evidence.

How do the two of you reach a consensus on this? Who is going to give ground first?

 

[Astridhere]

Davian says

What I find interesting is that AV says that there is *no* evidence for 'creation' and does go on about it. You are claiming that there is plenty of evidence.

How do the two of you reach a consensus on this? Who is going to give ground first?

I can only say that any creationist that thinks there is no evidence for creation has not researched sufficiently. As I said some evolutionists and creationists can defend their stance by no more than by faith. That's fine. I can se plenty of evidence for creation.

Human footprints dated to 3.7mya is evidence of mankind appearing in the fossil record in the same height range we see today, as they are full sized. Humans are found to be more recent than apes which also aligns with biblical creation. So interpreting the data, as provided by your researchers, as demonstrating mankind being found fully bipedal and predating supposed intermediates is excellent evidence for creation and is plausible if evolution is not presumed. To say these footprints belong to a 3.5ft curved fingered creature that was not found with feet and is now not even in the human line is simply non plausible or at least not as plausible.This is one of many lines I have followed that provides support for creationist paradigms, and there are plenty.

This creationist link speaks to same.

LiveLeak.com - Hmmm? No one is questioning the age of the footprint? Evolutionists dream come true

So there is evidence for creation and I have no idea why a creationist would say that there wasn't.

 

[Nostromo]

My whole point is that, sans atheism, the Arab world and the Jewish world are at least theistic evolutionists, meaning they are creationists.

So your point -- that in Europe, creationists are a rarer commodity -- can take a hike.

From reference.com:

creationism
"The belief that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing."

Theistic evolutionists aren't creationists.

Besides, Muslims and Jews probably make up about 4% of the UK population, so here at least they're still a small minority even if they are all creationists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Quite plainly, I am disputing the thread topic by demonstrating that indeed there is plenty of evidence and data that supports biblical creation ...

Respectfully speaking -- no, there isn't.

Anything you can produce in the way of evidence, would have to come well-after the creation week.

Aside from being w/o navels, even Adam & Eve wouldn't be able to produce evidence of the creation events, if their children would have asked for it.

Yes, they could say to their children, "Look around you. What do you see? Evidence everywhere!"

But that would not answer their question from a purely scientific point of view; as it doesn't tell them the method employed, or even the order it was employed in.