If one is an atheist I can understand they have no choice but to listen to the reasonings of man.
However if one does believe in a biblical God, . . .
That belief is a reasoning of man.
Just like evolutionists query still exactly what drives evolution, particularly with new info into HGT, functional ervs and epigentic inheritance, creationists may still query which creationist paradigm is correct.
So what evidence, if found, would falsify any of these creationist paradigms?
Evolutionists need faith in mankinds evolutionary reasoning,
Nope. All you need to do is test the hypotheses yourself. No faith needed. That is the advantage of science. You don't have to trust anyone. You can do all of the experiments yourself.
I as a creationist believe in the words of the bible, because the evidence of a higher intelligence lies within.
That is completely based on the reasoning of men, something you reject.
I don't doubt that you can twist scriptures to fit any fact you see fit.
There are also many finds that continue to validate biblical stories that were only ever seen as myth. The pools of shalome have ben found and many other finds that support the biblical stories.
The city of London has been found, so I guess you will accept the Harry Potter scriptures as true, right?
I see creationism as more stable. I see that most creationists do not need to change their view with increasing data.
There is no evidence that would make them change their view, as your own posts have shown. That is the problem. Creationism is a dogmatic religion that can't change even when the evidence runs counter to creationist claims.
It all points to creation and it supports creationist paradigms without the need for additional and non plausible scenarios to explain it.
What evidence, if found, would not point to creationism? What mixture of features in a fossil would falsify creationism, and why? What type of shared genetic marker between humans and other apes would falsify creationism? Before you make the claim that the evidence points to creationism you have to be willing to describe evidence that would not point towards creationism.
All the data evolutionists produce as evidence for evolution can also be interpreted by hypothesis that simply support creation.
Again, same question as above.
eg there will be no junk in DNA. ERVS must have function and are not relics.,There are no vestigal organs.
Where have you shown any of this? The human vermiform appendix does not aid in the digestion of cellulose. That makes it vestigial. Unless you can show that the appendix helps to digest cellulose it will continue to be vestigial.
Kinds will be found fully formed with no intermediate between kinds
There is no fossil that you would accept as transitional. You have admitted as much. Sorry, but dogma is not evidence.
eg terrestrail tetrapod footprints 395mya, birds 212mya, all the life that arose in the Cambrian.
What about them? How did you determine that these fossils were left by species that did not have ancestors from earlier time periods?
However as time passes all the more are creationists predictions verified and validated.
What predictions, and how were they validated? Where did creationists predict that tetrapod footprints would be found in 395 million year old sediments? Care to point to that paper?
Mostly we are warned about the reasonings of mankind. 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.
Are these the same authors who thought putting sheep and goats in front of a striped pole would cause them to give birth to striped offspring?
