Astridhere
Well-Known Member
- Jul 30, 2011
- 1,240
- 43
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
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?
I have often asserted that evolutionists like to demand more credible evidence than they themselves can supply. What drives evolution? Caution.. and remember HGT, epigentic inheritance, genetic drift etc etc. Whatever you reply I can provide research from an evolutionary scientist that will refute it. The how, when, where and why of evolution is still up for grabs. However, they all maintain common descent regardless of being unable to agree on the answers to many important evolutionary questions. Evolutionists do not need all the answers to have faith in their scientists and believe, and neither do creationists.
Likewise the evidence/data supports creation. What is up for grabs is the dating and which particular creationist paradigm is the more supported. It is that simple. I have produced helium dating as an example of an alternative that may support the most strict biblical interpretation, YEC, as an example. I align with young mankind dated to around 6,000ya and take the most liberal view of the rest of creation. However, that does not mean I disregard other creationist views that are less liberal. Regardless I am not even going to further understand creationists that cannot see evidence for biblical creation as there is much.
So in reply to the thread topic I have provided a plausible interpretation of human footprints and how they support creation in general as opposed to a non plaubible evolutionary one. Now someone here needs to show me they can actually defend this supposed data that is held up as evidence for evolution, while I am clearly indicating all Sediba demonstrates is a mess and contradiction.
Rather than continuing to ask me more and more questions and requests for me to defend my stance why don't one of you show me how well you can defend yourselves and how the data supports evolution in a plausible way, by answering my questions.
I am starting to accumulate evidence that evolutionists are unable to explain even the mystery of the thumb, nor speak to the Sediba research, but are perhaps offering nothing more than faith, more and more questions and asides in defence. Given the thread topic I suggest it is creation that has data to support it, whilst evolution has non plausible scenarios to support it. It seems this is substantiated here as no evolutionists can defend Sediba as a human ancestor, nor explain the mystery of the thumb. Is the researcher wrong????
Last edited:
Upvote
0