What proof would you need?

[Herman Hedning]

no.. many church people and secular readers misread the word "made" to imply "created."

the sun was created on "day one," (the cosmic formative era), in the beginning, as part of the heavens.

on "day" 4, god made the sun the time keeper of earth days and tears, by assigning the sun authiority over the solar clock.

check the hebrew word for made, and see that it means to assign.

ORLY?

1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make

a) (Qal)

1) to do, work, make, produce

a) to do
b) to work
c) to deal (with)
d) to act, act with effect, effect​

2) to make

a) to make
b) to produce
c) to prepare
d) to make (an offering)
e) to attend to, put in order
f) to observe, celebrate
g) to acquire (property)
h) to appoint, ordain, institute
i) to bring about
j) to use
k) to spend, pass​

b) (Niphal)

1) to be done
2) to be made
3) to be produced
4) to be offered
5) to be observed
6) to be used
c) (Pual) to be made​

2) (Piel) to press, squeeze

Sure, one of the many possible meanings is to appoint, but what is there to say that this is the correct interpretation here? You do realise that you can not just pick one of the listed meanings of a word at random, just to support whatever interpretation you personally favour, don't you? A bit of evidence would be nice.

 

[Astridhere]

It's not a matter of not having answers. Quite the opposite. Their answers are CONTRADICTORY. Creationism is so unstable that they can't even get the same age for the Earth to within 4 billion years, much less a stable position on common ancestry or a recent global flood. So again, I am baffled as to why you accept creationism with all of the instability since you cite stability as your one deciding factor.

...says the one that accepts multiple dimensions......

Timing is not a problem for me whatsoever with the exception of mankind.
I have already posted links to the problems with radiometric dating.

Your bamboozlement comes from expecting convoluted and long winded theories for which creationists have no need for. I do not need to demonstrate how a bacteria poofed into a human, whale or elephant, while a dog demonstrates there is a limit to the amount of variability in the genome. eg a dog will never be bred to be as small as a mouse not as big as a horse, let alone an elephant.

Hence you need rheems and rheems of theories, terms and theories to deal with the plethora of exceptions. You call this science. It is not. It is the desperate attempts of a people deluded by misrepresentation to realign the obvious evidence that supports creation into an evolutionary mystery.

You, as usual, have totally hand waved away any point I made in my posts. It is pointless and totally a waste of time having a discussion with you.

It is not about having all the answers for either side of the creation/evolution debate. Neither have. It is about having ridiculous scenarios offered up as explanations and interpretations of evidence found. Again I'll repeat, if you lot wish to believe a curved fingered 3.5ft arboreal ape had fully human feet then you go right ahead, pal. If you want to believe some dinosaur had fully modern bird feet, again you go right ahead. You are entitled to believe what you wish. However you need to get off your high horse in suggesting that what you have to offer as interpretations of evidence found is any more robust or credible than creationist interpretations.
It would seem that the only stable statement is that "It was created". That's it.
Again I'll speak to the fact that there is ample evidence for creation provided by researchers that are not provided with the substantial grants your lot have. I have provided some links to evidence for creation that cannot possible be worse than yours.
Is creationism scientific?

Chapter 3: Natural Selection vs. Evolution - Answers in Genesis
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Life Sciences

You do not have to agree with my evidences any more than I have to agree with yours. Of course the difference being creationist evidence is based on observation and not algorithmis myths and non plausible scenarios.


You lot havn't even got your heads around an advantageous allele, outside of immunity as Virus cause a lessening of fitness and yet have been selected for in ERVs. Your science is all a mess and you are almost fraudulent in suggesting what you have to offer is stable let alone credible. As I said what I have to offer cannot possibly be worse than 150 years of change, instablity, falsifications of irrefuteable evidence for evolution and contradiction.
Chapter 3: Natural Selection vs. Evolution - Answers in Genesis


Yet creationists have come along way in compiling evidence for the creation. The difference between you lot and us is that we do not have 150 years of instability and change to speak to.

An example of stability would be as follows. When you lot found that huge amounts of the genome had non coding DNA and shoved this down creationists throats as evidence of evolution and a falsification of creation, we creationists continually maintained that non coding DNA will eventually be found to have function. We did not knee jerk some ridiculous scenario as to why God would create useless genomic material. This knee jerking is what you evolutionists do with every new flavour of the month. Surprise..What you have found in every instance where non coding DNA has been comprehensively investigated is function. Of course there was a research done where by there own admission was not comprehensive gave an alternative view. You have straw grabbed this previously.

So non coding DNA being predicterd to have function has been stable. As time and research is done this claim is validated.

This is what stability looks like. Evolutionists likely have never experienced stability other than to sprooke 'It all evolved'. This is backed by misrepresentation, non plausible scenarios and algorithms that could demonstrate our closest living relative is a turtle if your researchers needed to.

There is plenty of evidence for a biblical flood. Some creationists take the most liveral view that still aligns with the bible. This is hardly change or instability. It is different view point ..NONE of which evoke ridiculous and non plausible scenarios like you lot have to in explaining what data you find.

Marine Team Finds Surprising Evidence Supporting A Great Biblical Flood
Evidence for the Biblical Account of the Flood

Literal or non literal biblical days is also not a problem for me as this is just a matter of trust in whose dating methods I would like to aside with.
Age of the Earth: young and old earth dating methods

The only change I am aware of in the various creationist camps is the accepting of Homo Erectus as being human. I am not one of these. Homo erectus has always been an ape and still is an ape today. Your best example Turkana boy has upper thighbones unlike a human or ape. Turkana Boy has an extra verterbra like other apes and a small neural canal like other apes and therefore was incapable of sophisticated speech. It has an ape head and no erectus have been found with their feet..How curious! Or are the feet tossed away because they are ape feet?????? I think Turkana Boy is a fraud derived by an assistant who always seems to be the one to make the major finds looking for glory. Regardless what they have put together is a variety of ape.

Note the tilt of the head disaligned comparativly with other skulls. Tilt the head back a little to square up the chin and all the more does this beast resemble an ape.

I can only say some creationists have been sucked in by all the woffle as quite clearly this thing is an ape. They perhaps should reconsider. If evolution happened Turkana Boy had nothing to do with it and certainly it is no intermediate.

Further to that another huge flaw in your evidence is the lack of chimp ancestors. We creationists know why. It is because any apefound is thrown into human ancestry as finding an ape is no big deal and does not get headlines and grants.

The rest of your homo erectus are clearly apes. So nothing important has changed for me and those that align with me. Hence I do not know what you are talking about other than trying to appear to have some sort of point to make which evades me and most certianly does not demonstrate instability in the biblical creationist camps.

It is not about having everything sorted, Loudmouth. Evolutionists believe in evolution despite the mess it is in and and ever growing mess it is with new data causing more questions than answers.

It is about the observed data supporting biblical creationism in general and befuddling evolutionists theories and predictions. That my friend is the best evidence for creation possible. I am afraid I have to say that I feel that creationists have the stronger stance in the creation/evolution debate for that reason.

 

[CTD]

I know how much you guys rely on the written word, but science is not dependent on written history.

Equivocation.

Speculation does not depend on much at all, but real science depends continually and directly upon written history and could not proceed without it.

How is experimental science to proceed without written reports? One of the procedures Christians standardized is the systematic sharing of research results. One researcher writes his findings, and submits them to others who examine his methods and reasoning for flaws and compare them with other relevant data. Based on his written report, others may attempt to confirm his observations. They in turn will submit written reports. It was at one time deemed important for things to be verified independently, you see, and written reports are an indispensable part of the process.

Yes, even when investigating God's laws in the present, testimony has a vital role to play. Much moreso when investigating the past. Honest history employs the right tool for the right job. No experiment has the potential to reveal Napoleon's opinions on nutrition. Experiment plays only a secondary, supplemental role.

The overall process of investigating the past consists of discovery, verification, and reconciliation. Nothing else has ever been employed by anyone who desired to discover past events and details about them. Even those who shall deny it, do themselves employ this method continually in day-to-day life. Want to know who scored the most touchdowns three seasons ago? Discover, verify, reconcile. Want to find out who murdered JFK? There is no alternative.

 

[Split Rock]

Funny how when I correct your mistakes you call it "nitpicking." Too bad you are not grown up enough to admit when you are wrong, huh? As far as the prints, I will say it one more time for you. Bird-like does not mean it came from a bird. In fact, many dinosuars had bird-like feet. That is hardly surprising, since they are closely related to birds! Show us the fossils of actual modern birds from the Triassic. Put up or shut up.

So basically what is observed provides the data and the facts. It is the interpretation of the data that demonstrates evolutionists to be straw grabbers. Still if you seriously want to believe a mouse deer is an early whale and curved fingered apes have human feet and dinosaurs have modern bird feet, not to mention the fairy land of multiple dimensions then you go right ahead. As for me I will stick with the plain and obvious explanations that also just so happen to align with creationism.

Like what? Explanations of how your god poofied dirt into a fully grown human? Do tell!

Theories built on foundations of straw will surely topple at the slightest challenge. Hence we see the theory of evolution being a theory in evolution itself. Alternatively we see the data align with creationism without the need for ridiculous non plausible scenarios and excuses and more terms to address that which does not align eg convergent evolution, homoplasy.

What data would not align with creationism? How about a geological column showing progression from one ecosystem to the next over billions of years? If that doesn't so it (and clearly it doesn't) then I guess you will stick to your non plausible scenarios (creationism) and excuses (apologetics) because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Meanwhile, science marches on and leaves you back in the early nineteenth century.

Your evolutionary researchers really should pack up their algorithms and take them to Wonderland, where they belong and get the heck out of the science labs and let some real scientists that use observations, not myth, get on with the job.

Myth? You mean ones with talking snakes and rib women?

 

[Astridhere]

Funny how when I correct your mistakes you call it "nitpicking." Too bad you are not grown up enough to admit when you are wrong, huh? As far as the prints, I will say it one more time for you. Bird-like does not mean it came from a bird. In fact, many dinosuars had bird-like feet. That is hardly surprising, since they are closely related to birds! Show us the fossils of actual modern birds from the Triassic. Put up or shut up.
So your show a hypocritical tone. Fossilized footprints are evidence. You also cannot produce a dinosaur fossil with modern bird feet. Not to worry we are used to evolutionists demanding more than they themselves are able to produce.

The point again being that you all but called me a liar re evidence of 212myo bird footprints and I demonstrated how foolish you are and you have taken umbridge. Too bad!

Even your own researchers take this very seriously and understand the implications it has for the current dino to bird theory.

Here take a look for yourself as I am sure you are unaqainted with the literature.

"The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution. "For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.
"But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs," Ruben said. "However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link."

Science Literature - Did birds fly in the Late Triassic?



Now having said all that there is actually fossil evidence of modern birds in the late triassic. It is called Protoavis and Confuciusornis sanctus dated to the same time as archaeopteryx.
Fossil Record of the Aves
Earliest beaked bird discovered

Additionally here is some info on your fraudulent dating methods that are about as scientific as the Tellitubbies.

Finding Confuciusornis sanctus and other birds as fully-formed, modern-looking varieties in the Late Jurassic layers presented a serious challenge to the view that Archaeopteryx should be identified as a transitional form. Strata within the Jehol Group also contain placental mammals and angiosperm plants, which suggested that the prevailing evolutionary theory would have to be radically changed to fit a Late Jurassic age for these layers. For this reason it was considered necessary to adjust the age of these Late Jurassic layers forward to the Early Cretaceous instead of revising the evolutionary concept in light of new evidence from China. Other evidence of suspect origin and quality was also accepted to support the prevailing ‘dinosaur to bird’ evolutionary hypothesis against the fresh evidence that was accumulating from the Jehol Group strata.
Chinese fossil layers and the uniformitarian re-dating of the Jehol Group

Like what? Explanations of how your god poofied dirt into a fully grown human? Do tell!
In actual fact yes. The bible writers knew before your fancy researchers did that man was made from the elements of dirt. The creation is akin to evolutionists abiogenesis. Again you like to deman more substantiation for theory than your yourself are able to provide.

What data would not align with creationism? How about a geological column showing progression from one ecosystem to the next over billions of years? If that doesn't so it (and clearly it doesn't) then I guess you will stick to your non plausible scenarios (creationism) and excuses (apologetics) because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Meanwhile, science marches on and leaves you back in the early nineteenth century.
We have already been here. Your fossil record is a mess and your dating methods fraudulent and self serving and we have just been talking about one of them...birds.

Myth? You mean ones with talking snakes and rib women?
Absolutely..the rib is an excellent way, given the vocabulary of the day, to speak to DNA.
Talking snakes are no more ridiculous than multiple dimensions and you likely have no problem accepting that.

Here is some more fraud from the jokers that found Turkana Boy.

Top: Dr. Richard Leakey's reconstruction shows an erroneous vertical facial profile on a 1.9 million-year-old early human skull. Bottom: Dr. Timothy Bromage's computer-simulated reconstruction shows the same skull with a distinctly protruding jaw. Dr. Bromage used the green and red lines to compare the location of the eyes, ears, and mouth, which must be in precise relationship to one another in all mammals. (Credit: Image courtesy of New York University)
Man's Earliest Direct Ancestors Looked More Apelike Than Previously Believed



So although, similarly to you, I do not have all the answers to every question, the main point is that overall my evidence for the creation is much more credible than your so called evidence for evolution.

 

[Aeneas]

the main point is that overall my evidence for the creation is much more credible than your so called evidence for evolution.

You haven't cited any evidence for creationism yet. Creationists never do. They seem to think that all that is necessary for Creationism to be scientifically accepted is to disprove evolutionary theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

You haven't cited any evidence for creationism yet.

How about you take this challenge: 1

Creationists never do.

If you take my challenge, you'll see why, viz. no evidence would be generated.

They seem to think that all that is necessary for Creationism to be scientifically accepted is to disprove evolutionary theory.

Not I.

 

[Split Rock]

Confuciusornis sanctus is from the Cretaceous, not from the Jurrasic! Opps... I wasn't supposed to correct anymore of your mistakes was I? .... that counts as "nitpicking." Protoavis' place is still unclear. Even if Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds, it is still a transitional, just as Confuciusornis is. Your claim is that modern birds left those footprints in the Triassic, and that is simply a falsehood. I don't know what else to call it at this point. Show me the "modern" bird" that lived during the Triassic. While you're at it, show me the modern fish and whales that lived in during the Cambrian. Show me the cattle from the Jurassic. Show me the elephants from the Pennsylvanian. Show me the humans from any of these strata. Put Up Or Shut Up.

Here is some more fraud from the jokers that found Turkana Boy.

Top: Dr. Richard Leakey's reconstruction shows an erroneous vertical facial profile on a 1.9 million-year-old early human skull. Bottom: Dr. Timothy Bromage's computer-simulated reconstruction shows the same skull with a distinctly protruding jaw. Dr. Bromage used the green and red lines to compare the location of the eyes, ears, and mouth, which must be in precise relationship to one another in all mammals. (Credit: Image courtesy of New York University)
Man's Earliest Direct Ancestors Looked More Apelike Than Previously Believed

Oh no! A possible error in a reconstruction! The angle is off! STOP THE PRESSES!!!!! It's EVO FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111

Now you pretend a not to know what "fraud" is. Let me tell you something. We scientists learn from our mistakes and correct them. You creationists sit on yours and claim it is Divine Wisdom from God. That leaves you stuck in a fantasy world that only people in the past should ever believe in, because they were ignorant.

So although, similarly to you, I do not have all the answers to every question, the main point is that overall my evidence for the creation is much more credible than your so called evidence for evolution.

Your every answer is the same. Either "It's Fraud!," or "Goddidit, cause it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside." Go home. Go to your church. Home school your children and teach them fantasies that make The Flintstones look like an historical documentary. But leave science to the experts.

 

[Loudmouth]

Timing is not a problem for me whatsoever with the exception of mankind.
I have already posted links to the problems with radiometric dating.

Old Earth Creationists claim that there are no problems with radiometric dating. Again, instability is rife within creationism.

There is plenty of evidence for a biblical flood.

Other creationists claim there is no evidence for a biblical flood.

This is hardly change or instability. It is different view point ..

And yet every "instability" you cite in evolution is a matter of differing view points. Go figure.

Here is some more fraud from the jokers that found Turkana Boy.

Hominid transitional fossils are just another example of the instability within creationism. Creationists can not agree on anything. Some of them claim that H. erectus is human, others say ape. For a rundown of the instability of creationism take a look at this page:

Comparison of all skulls

Creationists are all over the place. Again, if stability is your indication of truth then how can you accept creationism?

 

[SkyWriting]

But leave science to the experts.

Sorry, but 99% of science principals are taught before high school graduation.
If you didn't graduate, you might not know that.

Things we can learn from what Science claims:
Human began making tools about 100,000 years ago, they say.
Modern science picked up about 600 years ago.
That's a little over 1/2 of 1% of 100,000 years.
Science can't really know nuthin yet.

 

[Astridhere]

Old Earth Creationists claim that there are no problems with radiometric dating. Again, instability is rife within creationism.

No this is not instability at all. It is about the veracity of dating methods that one accepts. Old earth creationists take the most liberal view possible of the bible. In turn any less liberal views are also in alignment with the bible.

Other creationists claim there is no evidence for a biblical flood.

Same again. Mega or global still aligns with the bible. This is not instability.

And yet every "instability" you cite in evolution is a matter of differing view points. Go figure.

Your instability is noted by one theory of evolution that does not provide consistent data. For example All biblical creationists predict there will be no transitional fossils. This is indeed what is found. You have lined up fossils akin to a mouse, a cat and a dog then said there is a progression, all three bing totally different kinds. This is the misrepresentation you use as evidence for evolution. This is seen very well in your whale ancestry, human ancestry and bird ancestry. I am definitely young earth when it comes to mankind, the most important creation. Certainly for me there are no transitional fossils at all. What you present as evidence for human ancestry is a range of apes and humans, with no chimpanzee ancestry. Further to that I can successfully demonstrate that erectus is in no way human.

Instability means change loundmounth. The various creationists do not change their view. The only change is as stated, the acceptance of erectus.

Hominid transitional fossils are just another example of the instability within creationism. Creationists can not agree on anything. Some of them claim that H. erectus is human, others say ape. For a rundown of the instability of creationism take a look at this page:
I have already spoken to this as being the one and only chsnge in thinking as opposed to the millions you have over just one theoretical assertion.
Comparison of all skulls

The confusion re skulls comes from partial skulls and some creationists accepting erectus as human. I agree this was a huge mistake. This is not my problem as quite clearly most of your so called transitional examples are apes.

Creationists are all over the place. Again, if stability is your indication of truth then how can you accept creationism?
No actually all accept the Cambrian explosion and other evidence of creation as obvious proof of the creation. The details such as timing and mega or gobal flood are simply viewpoints yet to be estabished.

The major prediction that unites all creationists is there will be no convincing demonstration of evolution in the fossil record, the observed evidence. This is validated totally with only one exception, Homo erectus in some camps. This is not a problem for me as I am quite clear homo erectus is not human. So this is not sufficient for me to reconsider my view.

The other creationists prediction that supports the first is that kinds will be found to suddenly appear in the fossil record. eg Cambrian, mankind. This is exactly what is found.

These predictions are stable and validated, for all biblical creationists. The differences are only a matter of details to be worked out. This is not instability it is about not having all the answers, just like you lot.

Old or new earth is also not a problem for me. Neither is mega or biblical flood. I support the most liberal view of the bible. If more literal interpretations proove valid I am happy to align. For example more and more science is supporting a global flood. Although a mega flood suffices I am changing this view as conclusive evidence of mega floods is now being outweighted by a major global flood. Note: There is no need for non plausible and ridiculous scenarios to ensue. Simply more data is clearing up the detail. This is different to maintaining there was no flood in the face of convincing evidence there was, which is what evolutionists do.

That is what the scientific mind does, Loudmouth. This is opposed to evolutionary science that invents non plausible scenarios to save itself from falsification.

The only grand claim that creationists make is that there is a deity, a spirit, that has the power to perform amazing feats. All life, including encoding of information in the brain can be broken down into elements. Given we are talking about a life form we know absolutely nothing about, given how what appears to be magic 200 years ago is now reality in a material world I think God creating life forms fully functional is not as far fetched as putting human feet on a curved fingered ape, nor suggesting dinosaurs had modern bird feet.

The fossil evidence, the observed evidence, supports creationist paradigms in general. The rest is detail yet to be established conclusively and does not amount to instability.

Of course the biggest point is that there is no evidence for evolution at all that is observed. There are misrepresentations, algorithmic unobserved data and a lot of confusion and instability over just one theory of how it all evolved. This is truly shocking. You'd think with just one paradigm in mind your evidence would confirm, rather than confuse the status quo. Unfortunately for you this is not the case.

 

[jay1]

Sorry, but 99% of science principals are taught before high school graduation.
If you didn't graduate, you might not know that.

Things we can learn from what Science claims:
Human began making tools about 100,000 years ago, they say.
Modern science picked up about 600 years ago.
That's a little over 1/2 of 1% of 100,000 years.
Science can't really know nuthin yet.

Things we can learn from religion:

The word of the one God is infallible and taught to every christian.
There are 38000 different Christian denominations each with a different interpretation
Religion either has bad teachers or a bad source

 

[Split Rock]

Sorry, but 99% of science principals are taught before high school graduation.
If you didn't graduate, you might not know that.

Things we can learn from what Science claims:
Human began making tools about 100,000 years ago, they say.
Modern science picked up about 600 years ago.
That's a little over 1/2 of 1% of 100,000 years.
Science can't really know nuthin yet.

So, when is "science" going to lurn sumthin? Do tell.

 

[Astridhere]

Confuciusornis sanctus is from the Cretaceous, not from the Jurrasic! Opps... I wasn't supposed to correct anymore of your mistakes was I? .... that counts as "nitpicking." Protoavis' place is still unclear. Even if Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds, it is still a transitional, just as Confuciusornis is. Your claim is that modern birds left those footprints in the Triassic, and that is simply a falsehood.

My claim is that modern bird footprints dated to 212mya demonstrates your bird ancestry is crapp and it does. You appear to be throwing your party and having some converstion with yourself.

The point is your bird evolution is a mess just like the rest and I do not have to produce anything to satisfy the likes of you at your request.

However suck this up anyway......I have already provided this.....
For years, Archaeopteryx was considered to be the oldest bird known, but its position has recently been usurped by Protoavis texensis from the Late Triassic Dockum Group of Texas, predating Archaeopteryx by 75 million years
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/chatterjee-birds.html



I don't know what else to call it at this point. Show me the "modern" bird" that lived during the Triassic. While you're at it, show me the modern fish and whales that lived in during the Cambrian. Show me the cattle from the Jurassic. Show me the elephants from the Pennsylvanian. Show me the humans from any of these strata. Put Up Or Shut Up.
I shall not waste time with you. Unlike your own scientists that accept fossil footprints as evidence you appear to be having a hard time accepting what fossil evidence constitutes. Go back to BIO101.

Oh no! A possible error in a reconstruction! The angle is off! STOP THE PRESSES!!!!! It's EVO FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111

And yet you cannot get away from the fact that these bright sparks got it wrong and just how easy it is to misrepresent the fossil evidence to suit whatever you need it to suit.

Now you pretend a not to know what "fraud" is. Let me tell you something. We scientists learn from our mistakes and correct them. You creationists sit on yours and claim it is Divine Wisdom from God. That leaves you stuck in a fantasy world that only people in the past should ever believe in, because they were ignorant.

Good. However you are not a scientist as you are unable to accept the evidence even your own scients accept although it has caused confusion.
Your every answer is the same. Either "It's Fraud!," or "Goddidit, cause it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside." Go home. Go to your church. Home school your children and teach them fantasies that make The Flintstones look like an historical documentary. But leave science to the experts.
Do you or will you teach your kids about the tooth fairy and Santa only to demonstrate you are a liar down the track? perhaps your parents lied to you as they did me.

I am glad to see you have devolved into squarking and demanding evidence that actually has nothing to do with 212myo modern bird footprints throwing your bird ancestry into disarry. Suck it up Split Rock. Your well credentialled researchers have had to. OR do you think you are special?.

Rudolfensis is a great example of how easy it is to misrepresent a reconstructed fossil. With any fossil evidence I urge each creationist to look up the find and see exactly what was found.

Many fossils purported in the fossil record are single bones or non colocated pieces. This single bone can be materialized into a sketch of a complete creature and given a whole life story. This very much makes up the majority of your so called fossil evidence.

Even with the misrepresenations you still do not have fossil evidence of transition of ape to man or dino to bird etc.

Turkana Boy is your best example and the most complete. Turkana Boy is a mosaic of pieces, not a skeleton found in tact.

All Homo Erectus are apes. Lucy and Ardi are apes and not even in the human line according to you lot. Therefore you have no transitional fossils to establish the connection between human and chimp. You don't even have a decent chimp ancestry demonstrated by fossils back to a common ancestor. This satisfies my creationist predictions and the creation of mankind is confirmed.

 

[Split Rock]

The only grand claim that creationists make is that there is a deity, a spirit, that has the power to perform amazing feats.

Creationists make more claims than just "there is a god." If they didn't, this sub-forum wouldn't even exist.

Given we are talking about a life form we know absolutely nothing about, given how what appears to be magic 200 years ago is now reality in a material world I think God creating life forms fully functional is not as far fetched as putting human feet on a curved fingered ape, nor suggesting dinosaurs had modern bird feet.

All because we don't understand everything about life, doesn't mean we understand nothing about life. Though, I understand why you woudl like to believe so.. it lets you cling to a creation story told by Hebrew nomads thousands of years ago that makes you feel good.

The fossil evidence, the observed evidence, supports creationist paradigms in general.

A miraculous creation of all life as it basically is today 6,000 years ago? Nope. Not what the evidence supports at all.

The rest is detail yet to be established conclusively and does not amount to instability.

There will never be anything established conclusively when it comes to creationism. There will never be a list of created "kinds," for example... because there never were any "kinds" to begin with.

Of course the biggest point is that there is no evidence for evolution at all that is observed. There are misrepresentations, algorithmic unobserved data and a lot of confusion and instability over just one theory of how it all evolved. This is truly shocking. You'd think with just one paradigm in mind your evidence would confirm, rather than confuse the status quo. Unfortunately for you this is not the case.

"All of evolutionary biology is a fraud... blah, blah, blah." You point the finger at your neighbors so readily and judge them and bear false witness against them. Just like your bible tells you not to do.

 

[Jazer]

Other creationists claim there is no evidence for a biblical flood.

The evidence is what was on the ARK and saved from the Flood.
If it were not for Noah then they would all have perished.

Evolution tells us all about the Biodiversity we would have found in Eden.
Evolution theory is the best evidence we have for the Garden in Eden.

If people really understood the theory they would know that had to have been a Eden.

 

[Phred]

All Homo Erectus are apes. Therefore you have no trasitional fossils to establish the connection between human and chimp. This satisfies my creationist predictions and the creation of mankind is confirmed.

All humans are apes too. Thus you have successfully proven the link between the two.

 

[Split Rock]

I am glad to see you have devolved into squarking and demanding evidence that actually has nothing to do with 212myo modern bird footprints throwing your bird ancestry into disarry. Suck it up Slit Tock. Your well credentialled researchers have had to. OR do you think you are special?.

Rudolfensis is a great example of how easy it is to misrepresent a reconstructed fossil. With any fossil evidence I urge each creationist to look up the find and see exactly what was found.

Many fossils purported in the fossil record are single bones or non colocated pieces. This single bone can be materialized into a sketch of a complete creature and given a whole life story. This very much makes up the majority of your so called fossil evidence.

Even with the misrepresenations you still do not have fossil evidence of transition of ape to man or dino to bird etc.

Turkana Boy is your best example and the most complete. Turkana Boy is a mosaic of pieces, not a skeleton found in tact.

All Homo Erectus are apes. Therefore you have no trasitional fossils to establish the connection between human and chimp. This satisfies my creationist predictions and the creation of mankind is confirmed.

I'm not the one "squarking' (whatever that is) and bearing false witness here... you are. I asked you to show us the evidence that supports the creationist paradigm. It should be easy. You obviously cannot, so you accuse me of "nitpicking" and "squarking." Meanwhile all you do is nitpick and make false accusations of "fraud" against people you don't even know. There are moutains of evidence of human evolution, not only including Turkana boy and H. erectus, but many others. Some are only one or two bones, yes, but there are plenty of near complete skeletons and skulls as well. Go ahead and ignore the evidence if you like. Claim Turkana was "just a human," and H. erctus is "just an ape." Claim it is all "fraud." You are convincing no one but yourself with your ignorance and false witness. Of course, you didn't come here to do anything other than convince yourself... did you?

 

[Phred]

The evidence is what was on the ARK and saved from the Flood.
If it were not for Noah then they would all have perished.

Evolution tells us all about the Biodiversity we would have found in Eden.
Evolution theory is the best evidence we have for the Garden in Eden.

If people really understood the theory they would know that had to have been a Eden.

There was no ark. There was no flood. There was no garden of eden. When you're done claiming your fairy tales are real then we can begin to discuss reality.

 

[jay1]

The evidence is what was on the ARK and saved from the Flood.
If it were not for Noah then they would all have perished.

Evolution tells us all about the Biodiversity we would have found in Eden.
Evolution theory is the best evidence we have for the Garden in Eden.

If people really understood the theory they would know that had to have been a Eden.

So, the evidence for the flood is what survived on an Ark that we have no proof of, that was built to withstand the flood. Hmmm...


questions i have are: If all that survives today are descendants of what was on the Ark, where do penguins come from? Did Noah go to the Antarctic?

What about Kangaroos? Did he go to Australia and get them and then put them back?