Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[cubinity]

Both -- and we're taking care of the creationism.

I don't know what it means to "take care of the creationism." Is it a lost puppy?

 

[Belk]

But for those of us who do, ignorant means they disagree with you.

That's why the late Henry Morris is "ignorant", as well as the staff at I.C.R, and Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, and on and on...

Eyes ignit.

No, it's just that some that are ignorant have deluded themselves into believing they can refute the experts in a subject with no data.

 

[Timothew]

He was, and remains correct. As he, I and others have pointed out, you are ignorant of what actually constitutes science, what evolutionary theory claims and does not claim, and what actually appears in science text books when it comes to evolution. If that were not the case you wouldn't keep whining about "people talking mean to you" and just present evidence of your experience, knowledge and/or expertise on the subject.

Look, let me give you some advice on several levels. If you have to make claims about something then can't back up those claims. If you gripe about rudeness or bullying or whatever when people challange your assertions instead of defending them. If you claim to have a deep understanding of a subject, but exhibit a complete lack of or misunderstanding of a subject... the problem is not with everybody else... it's with you.

Sfs doesn't pull out his handfull of trump cards very often, so if he does, the average reader of this forum can understand that the person he's responding to is in way over their heads when it comes to claims of understanding of evolution and specifically genetics.

The fact that you continue to make yourself the subject of discussion and not the evidences that have been presented only make it all the more obvious that you're in way over your head and it's time to acknowledge that or bow out of the discussion.

OK, I bow out. You guys are ignorant about ignorant means, and not worth talking to. If you accuse someone of ignorance, it is up to you to prove it.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you accuse someone of ignorance, it is up to you to prove it.

If that's all they accuse you of, Tim -- they're basically ignoring you.

 

[mzungu]

Is this a thread about creationism, or ignorance?

Is there a difference

 

[Nathan Poe]

I don't know what it means to "take care of the creationism." Is it a lost puppy?

Well, it is completely helpless and can't really do anything on its own, so I guess it needs a lot of taking care of.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Timothew, you need to stop taking the claims of ignorance as personal attacks.

I'm ignorant of the Japanese language. I knew only a few words. Imagine if I were to participate in a thread on Japanese and make several claims that fluent speakers called me out on. Even if I were an expert at linguistics, that wouldn't make me an expert on the particulars of a specific language
I would have two choices.

1- I could admit that there might be flaws in my understanding and try to learn
2- I could deny I was wrong and take the corrections as insults.

Thus far you seem to have taken the second option. You've talked about evolution in a way that seems to indicate you have several misconceptions about it. People here have tried to inform you of these corrections but you've taken this as a personal affront.

You have a college degree in a specialized area, which shows that you're a smart and dedicated person. But even if you studied biology in the past, what you've talked about here indicate holes or misconceptions in your knowledge. Comments on theories being 'proved' and antiquated beliefs like the drawings still being relevant are some of those gaps.

Please take this chance to try and learn some of the points discussed here. If you refuse to accept that you might be wrong about things then you will never be able to grow your knowledge.

 

[Astridhere]

He was, and remains correct. As he, I and others have pointed out, you are ignorant of what actually constitutes science, what evolutionary theory claims and does not claim, and what actually appears in science text books when it comes to evolution. If that were not the case you wouldn't keep whining about "people talking mean to you" and just present evidence of your experience, knowledge and/or expertise on the subject.

Look, let me give you some advice on several levels. If you have to make claims about something then can't back up those claims. If you gripe about rudeness or bullying or whatever when people challange your assertions instead of defending them. If you claim to have a deep understanding of a subject, but exhibit a complete lack of or misunderstanding of a subject... the problem is not with everybody else... it's with you.

Sfs doesn't pull out his handfull of trump cards very often, so if he does, the average reader of this forum can understand that the person he's responding to is in way over their heads when it comes to claims of understanding of evolution and specifically genetics.

The fact that you continue to make yourself the subject of discussion and not the evidences that have been presented only make it all the more obvious that you're in way over your head and it's time to acknowledge that or bow out of the discussion.

Fully terestrial tetrapods have been dated to 395mya, with no foot webbing, as well as many other devonian tetrapods that have been found. Some do not have tail drag marks indicating no tail. Some preceed tiktaalic by 18my. This is evidence that some terrestrial kinds were created just after a creative period in the Cambrian.
Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News
Devonian Times - Tetrapod Trackways


Modern birds footprints have been dated to 212mya and precede dinosaurs. Birds were alive and well 212mya and flourishing as they were created after the creatures of the sea and before the land animals.
Ancient bird-like footprints found - 26 June 2002 - New Scientist
Figure 1 : Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic : Nature
2 Scientists Say New Data Disprove Dinosaur-Bird Theory - NYTimes.com

You have Ardi, Lucy and erectus being challenged by some researchers as being direct human ancestors.
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths
Ardi: Scientists Challenge Human Ancestor Connection - TIME

You have a 3.5ft curved fingered ape being responsible for full sized adult human Laetoli footprints as australopithecus was not found with any foot bones until recently.

However an australopithecus sediba was found with some ankle bones in tact and your researchers suggest that this specimen dated to 1.97my was still a tree climber and this is displayed in the ankle. They suggest she has hands more like human hands. Neither this ape nor any one of the time left fully human footprints. Take a look and see that the thumb is ridiculously long, even longer that a human thumb compared to the other digits yet researchers say this creature may have made tools. Once again your researchers try to humanise a tree climbing ape as they did Ardi, Lucy & erectus.

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


It appears that in actual fact your verterbae phylogeny is out of whack as is your dino to bird theory.

This evidence sits well for me as a creationist but appears to cause a conundrum for evolutionists.

Rather than suggesting creationists have no science or evidence for their claims I would strongly suggest that evolutionists have no science behind their claims. Rather you have a list of non plausible scenarios and complicated algorithms with debated insertion values, to explain why the evidence for creation is really an evolutionary mystery.

It may be fun for evolutionists to suggest creationism is not founded on scientific evidence. Unfortunately it is also a sign of evolutionists being way out of touch with a paradigm that they know little about but are more than happy to ridicule.

 

[mzungu]

Take a look and see that the thumb is ridiculously long, even longer that a human thumb compared to the other digits yet researchers say this creature may have made tools. Once again your researchers try to humanise a tree climbing ape as they did Ardi, Lucy & erectus.

Both Chimpanzees and Bonobos fashion tools and they are tree climbers. There is no need to humanise any ape since humans are also apes. We belong to the African Apes and there is nothing you can say that can change this unless you can come up with empirical evidence that will counteract and refute DNA evidence that shows we are apes and our closest relatives are chimpanzees and bonobos..

All you are doing by mixing creationism with scientific endeavour is basically comparing oranges to transistors.

 

[Split Rock]

But for those of us who do, ignorant means they disagree with you.

No it actually means.... ignorant.

That's why the late Henry Morris is "ignorant", as well as the staff at I.C.R, and Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, and on and on...

Henry Morris was certainly ignortant about geography and the earth's history. One wonders why he wrote a book about such topics.

The ICR staff is ignorant about some things they speak about.. but not all. That makes many of their many incorrect statements deliberate falsehoods, rather than mistakes. Hardly a better case scenario.

Kent Hovind, on the other hand, is truly ignorant about just about everything he speaks of.

Eyes ignit.

Agreed!

 

[Split Rock]

Fully terestrial tetrapods have been dated to 395mya, with no foot webbing, as well as many other devonian tetrapods that have been found. Some do not have tail drag marks indicating no tail. Some preceed tiktaalic by 18my. This is evidence that some terrestrial kinds were created just after a creative period in the Cambrian.
Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News
Devonian Times - Tetrapod Trackways

Foot webbing is unlikely to be preserved, so why are you surprised it was not found with these fossils? ALso, tail drag marks are not necessarily preserved either, assuming the tail would be dragged in the first place. Tell us about the mammals and reptile fossils that show God created them during the Cambrian. Just one, please.

Modern birds footprints have been dated to 212mya and precede dinosaurs. Birds were alive and well 212mya and flourishing as they were created after the creatures of the sea and before the land animals.
Ancient bird-like footprints found - 26 June 2002 - New Scientist
Figure[bless and do not curse]1 : Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic : Nature
2 Scientists Say New Data Disprove Dinosaur-Bird Theory - NYTimes.com

How do you translate "bird-like" into "modern bird?" So you think we are too dumb to tell the difference? Besides, many dinosaur prints are bird-like, but you don't seem to think anything of that!

You have Ardi, Lucy and erectus being challenged by some researchers as being direct human ancestors.
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths
Ardi: Scientists Challenge Human Ancestor Connection - TIME

The question of direct ancestors" is always a difficult one to answer. The fact is we have so many hoiminid fossils, that it makes it even harder to dtermine which, if any, are on the direct line to modern humans. I wonder why that is?

You have a 3.5ft curved fingered ape being responsible for full sized adult human Laetoli footprints as australopithecus was not found with any foot bones until recently.

Until recently. so...???

However an australopithecus sediba was found with some ankle bones in tact and your researchers suggest that this specimen dated to 1.97my was still a tree climber and this is displayed in the ankle. They suggest she has hands more like human hands. Neither this ape nor any one of the time left fully human footprints. Take a look and see that the thumb is ridiculously long, even longer that a human thumb compared to the other digits yet researchers say this creature may have made tools. Once again your researchers try to humanise a tree climbing ape as they did Ardi, Lucy & erectus.

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

Why should transitionals have "fully human" footprints?? Would they be transitional if they did?

It appears that in actual fact your verterbae phylogeny is out of whack as is your dino to bird theory.

This evidence sits well for me as a creationist but appears to cause a conundrum for evolutionists.

What does it mean for any evidence to "sit well" for a creationist? No matter what we find it is simply declared "evidence for creation." Tell us... what evidence would you as a creationist not find to be "evidence for creation?"

Rather than suggesting creationists have no science or evidence for their claims I would strongly suggest that evolutionists have no science behind their claims. Rather you have a list of non plausible scenarios and complicated algorithms with debated insertion values, to explain why the evidence for creation is really an evolutionary mystery.

Show us science for your claims then. Show us evidence for "created kinds." Show us that nested hierarchies can be created by something other than genetic descent. Show us chimeras that evolution cannot explain, like pegasi, hydras, manticores, unicorns, etc. Show us the evidence.

It may be fun for evolutionists to suggest creationism is not founded on scientific evidence. Unfortunately it is also a sign of evolutionists being way out of touch with a paradigm that they know little about but are more than happy to ridicule.

Creationism is based squarely on a literalistic interpretation of scripture, not on scientific evidence. How could you not know that?

 

[sfs]

It may be fun for evolutionists to suggest creationism is not founded on scientific evidence. Unfortunately it is also a sign of evolutionists being way out of touch with a paradigm that they know little about but are more than happy to ridicule.

What creationist paradigm? Or rather, which one? Hugh Ross's old earth creationism, with lots of individual creation events (possibly using existing creatures)? The young-earth paradigm of the ICR, Ken Ham, etc -- and if so, whose version of flood geology? The young-earth paradigm of Kurt Wise, who thinks the evidence points to an old earth but believes in a young earth anyway because the Bible says so? The paradigm of Michael Behe, in which common descent is true but God has in some unspecified way stepped in from time to time to engineer bits of cells? The other paradigm of Michael Behe, in which all of the future history of life was front-loaded into the original cells? The paradigm of many of the other Discovery Institute folks, which consists of refusing to say anything at all about what happened, except it involved an unidentified (wink, wink) intelligent designer? Which of these do you think we should be more familiar with?

 

[USincognito]

It may be fun for evolutionists to suggest creationism is not founded on scientific evidence. Unfortunately it is also a sign of evolutionists being way out of touch with a paradigm that they know little about but are more than happy to ridicule.

Coming from someone who thought a modern human skeleton was Lucy, who didn't understand neotonous cranial features until it was explained to her, who insisted for two weeks that Salem was Lucy, who thinks 90 million years is "an instant", who thinks Turkana boy is an "ape" despite not being able to provide a reasonable distinction between "apes" and "humans", all the while igoring the fact that apart from his brow ridge, protruding mandible and smaller cranial capacity, he has all the characteristics of genus Homo - I find your 11th inning comments laughable and hardly worthy of serious consideration.

 

[Split Rock]

If that's all they accuse you of, Tim -- they're basically ignoring you.

Did you say something, AVET?

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you say something, AVET?

 

[Astridhere]

Foot webbing is unlikely to be preserved, so why are you surprised it was not found with these fossils? ALso, tail drag marks are not necessarily preserved either, assuming the tail would be dragged in the first place. Tell us about the mammals and reptile fossils that show God created them during the Cambrian. Just one, please.

Now you are confusing science as being the product of answering your every question rather than presenting 100 years of evolutionary misclassifications and mistakes as evidence.

Rather the data speaks for itself. The findings are fully terrestrial tetrapods 10 million years older than the supposed intermediate tiktaalik, many with no tail marks. The rest is speculation which evolutionary science is full of.

This, like it or not, stuffs your verterbate phylogeny and is solid support for the creation of kinds with NO intermediates.

How do you translate "bird-like" into "modern bird?" So you think we are too dumb to tell the difference? Besides, many dinosaur prints are bird-like, but you don't seem to think anything of that!

What is bird like? Bird like means the footprints stuff your theory so lets try to turn them into dinosaurs. Many researchers now challenge the dino to bird theory. It is not about who is right or wrong. It is about grabbing at straws in a bog of mud.

Do not confuse not being a scientist with being blind. The bird prints I linked were indistinguishable from todays birds. Again the rest is evolutionary speculation that befuddles clear evidence for creation into some evolutionary mystery.

The question of direct ancestors" is always a difficult one to answer. The fact is we have so many hoiminid fossils, that it makes it even harder to dtermine which, if any, are on the direct line to modern humans. I wonder why that is?
Your researchers have difficulty telling the difference between a human and ape bone today. How much more unlikely is it that they can tell the difference of old withered bones, whilst trying to shovel every find into the human line, only to recant time and time again.

Until recently. so...
???
The point being as of 2mya the only specimen of feet you have shows a tree climber. The 3.6myo human footprints show the non plausibility of these full sized human footprints belonging to any tree climber be it afarensis or erectus. Rather they show mankind dwelled amongst afarensis and erectus and appeared 3.7 mya according to your dating and NOT in an intermediate form but human. The bamboozling and wildly non plausible scenario of curved fingered 3.5ft apes leaving fully human footprints, or half witted erectus making stone huts with a lack of sophisticated language and higher reasoning ability, is not going to give the theory any merit. You need to deal with it!

Why should transitionals have "fully human" footprints?? Would they be transitional if they did?
Just rid yourself of the speculation for a minute and concetrate on the data. The footprints show fully human adult, full sized footprints with a human gait even more human than some flat footed humans now may leave. That is what the data shows. The placing of human feet on a curved fingered 3.5 foot ape, who now is being challenged as a human ancestor, is evolutionists trying to humanise every ape they find.

Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

What does it mean for any evidence to "sit well" for a creationist? No matter what we find it is simply declared "evidence for creation." Tell us... what evidence would you as a creationist not find to be "evidence for creation?"

Oh how bizzare. The thread ridicules creationists ability to use data. When a creationists does aptly apply data to a creationist paradigm you play this line. Listen up! Some people need to pull their head in a little.

What is more hilarious is your researchers scurrying around inventing the most ridiculous non plausible scenarios to try to make contradicting data fit into an evolutionary paradigm.

Show us science for your claims then. Show us evidence for "created kinds." Show us that nested hierarchies can be created by something other than genetic descent. Show us chimeras that evolution cannot explain, like pegasi, hydras, manticores, unicorns, etc. Show us the evidence.
No..the thread did not request a theory of everything that is better thsn your 100 years of mistakes, controversy and mistakes.

I have applied data to support my creationist views. Now some evolutionists are going to show their hypocricy and request a higher standard evidence than they themselves can supply.

Nested hierarchies are a joke card that you like to play. Where does tiktaalik sit in your nested mess now that he is cast aside as an intermediate. Where do all the creodonta and carnivores mix of bears cats and dogs sit in your hierarchies. These are just flavour of the month.

Back past the family/sub family rank, which in most cases is the comparative kind, all you have is a mess of various species you suggest are related by some silly similarity, despite all you know about homoplasy.

Your researchers invent the criteria based on their predetermined assumptions, apply it, and then herald this as irrefuteable evidence for evolution.

The same goes for chimp/human shared ervs that become endogenous after HGT in the distant past or are functional systems, as your data is demonstrating, that were expessed in the creation.




Creationism is based squarely on a literalistic interpretation of scripture, not on scientific evidence. How could you not know that?
That is a statement made from ignorance. I did not use scripture to demonstrate how recent research supports a creationist paradigm. I have presented data that supports creation. I can provide heaps more. You can only present 100 years of mess, reclassifications and mistakes, eg LUCA recanted & killed by HGT, single cell abiogenesis recanted, Knuckle walking ancestry recanted, junk DNA recanted, brain size tied to bipedalism recanted, the list goes on and on.....

The other thing you present is your inability to tell the difference between scripture and data and how desperate you are to vilify creationists at any cost, even your own credibility

So basically some evolutionists, such as yourself, are not here to see how data can be applied to creationist thinking. They are here to play games of put up better than we can or else creationists will be ridiculed.

What a sad way to spend your day.

 

[cubinity]

I think the "that's sad" thing is way overrated.
It doesn't communicate something I leap to agree with.
The user of the "that's sad" argument usually loses my support, not gains it.

 

[Astridhere]

Coming from someone who thought a modern human skeleton was Lucy, who didn't understand neotonous cranial features until it was explained to her, who insisted for two weeks that Salem was Lucy, who thinks 90 million years is "an instant", who thinks Turkana boy is an "ape" despite not being able to provide a reasonable distinction between "apes" and "humans", all the while igoring the fact that apart from his brow ridge, protruding mandible and smaller cranial capacity, he has all the characteristics of genus Homo - I find your 11th inning comments laughable and hardly worthy of serious consideration.

Too bad you can do not better than offer past conversations as a refute to a creationist being able to provide data that supports creation and refute the ignorant claim made against us. This is about all you got!!!.

I note you stopped playing on the other thread as you were unable to refute the solid evidence I provided for creation at the expense of evolution.

This thread suggests creationists cannot provide data to support their views.

I have provided evidence of fully terrestrial tetrapods on earth 395mya. That does not support evolution and the evolutionary writer also suggests the concerns this find means for verterbate phylogeny. It does support the creation of terrestrial kinds soon after fishes. Dating birds to 212mya via what looks like perfectly good examples of modern birdprints today is also convincing evidence that birds were alive and well and likely were created in line with the bible.

The data is the data. It fits well with my creationist thinking. The data still remains the data but provides a headache for evolutionists.

I have simply proved you wrong and you do not like it. The thread suggested creationists do not need data to assert their stance and I have shown it can be easily done.

Now watch here creationists and see what game is thrown my/our way. Would any creationist like to have a guess.

I bet some evolutionist will continue to play the answer every question better than we can game. The thinking behind this debased straw grab is that if they can ask us one single question we are not absolutely 100% clear on and can provide substantiated, non debated research (BTW..there is no such thing), at a much higher level than they themselves can, then they sprook a war cry of glory as they feel they have won the day despite their hypocricy and the ridiculousness of their scheme.

I have provided data that supports creation. It is sufficient to refute the false claim that creationists do not apply data. I do not need to refute 100 years of straw grabbing nonsense to make my point, USincognito.

 

[Astridhere]

I think the "that's sad" thing is way overrated.
It doesn't communicate something I leap to agree with.
The user of the "that's sad" argument usually loses my support, not gains it.

That would be a fair comment if your support was required. I have no interest in evolutionists that wish to spend their time belittling a faith they usually know squat about. Nor do I have time for hypocrites that demand more than they themselves can supply.

All these threads ever amount to is a creationist bashing arena with little to no true interest in the reasoning behind creationist thinking.

 

[cubinity]

That would be a believable comment if you weren't using your precious time writing interesting dialogues with all those evolutionists and hypocrites that you claim not to have any time for nor interest in. Isn't there something else that is more worthy of your precious time and interest. I, for one, have nothing better to do with my time. Clearly, neither do you.

And, let's be honest, there isn't reason behind creationist thinking.