Why doesnt creationism need any data?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
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

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I can only say that any creationist that thinks there is no evidence for creation has not researched sufficiently.

Researched what, Astrid?

As I said, if you were Adam's son or daughter, and you asked your mom or dad for evidence; what would they provide you?

(Other than an absence of navels, that is.)
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I have often asserted that evolutionists like to demand more credible evidence than they themselves can supply.
Yes, I know you assert that. You're wrong, however. Evolutionary biology has vastly more evidence than creationism of any flavor.

What drives evolution?
What "drives" changing allele frequencies? Nothing has to drive it -- it's inevitable, in a finite population, because of sampling noise (i.e. genetic drift always occurs in real populations). A number of other specific processes can drive particular evolutionary changes: directional selection, biased gene conversion, other forms of meiotic drive, endosymbiosis.

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.
I just gave you my response. Please refute it.

The how, when, where and why of evolution is still up for grabs.
Details are up for grabs. The basic picture is really quite well understood. There may be disagreement on the exact order in which particular phylogenetic branches diverged, but none on the bulk of the tree. There are disagreements about when lineages diverged -- was it twenty million years ago, or thirty? -- because the evidence is often spotty on the details. In particular, no one knows which fossils represent direct human ancestors, and which represent variously removed side branches. On the other hand, lots of things are not up for grabs. There is no doubt that chimpanzees (and bonobos) are our nearest living relatives, and that gorillas the second nearest. There is no doubt that the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged between 3 and 10 million years ago. (Contrast this with creationist theories, which can't agree on the age of the earth to within six orders of magnitude.)

What this means is that you can't undermine evolutionary biology by trying to refute particular speculative reconstructions of bits of the tree, which is what you've been doing. If you could seriously attack major areas where results are firm, you'd be on to something; if you could show that humans were more closely related to cockroaches than to chimpanzees, or that fossil ordering was random, you'd be undercutting real biology. But you can't, because the firm conclusions are based on vast amounts of data. Instead, all you can do is poke at the edges.

The other thing you haven't done is provide any evidence for creationism -- not against evolution, but for creationism. For something to be evidence for a theory, the theory has to predict something. What does creationism predict about anything? Particular creationist models predict specifics, e.g. YEC predicts that all species on earth are young. But you don't seem to be willing to take that kind of stand. Instead, you presented evidence for creationism that flatly contradicts a young earth, which is the model you favor -- and yet you still think it's evidence in favor of your view.
 
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
AV says

Researched what, Astrid?

As I said, if you were Adam's son or daughter, and you asked your mom or dad for evidence; what would they provide you?

(Other than an absence of navels, that is.)


Well for a start researched the evidence that places mankind before its supposed ancestors. That's a good start. If a biblical creationist can see evidence of mankind suddenly appearing in the fossil record, albeit as footprints, while additionally predating species evolutionists suggest are intermediates, then I'd say that is darn good evidence for a biblical creation...and is more than you have provided for your view, whatever that is.

Further more, it is not my mothers evidence I have provided in relation to the mystery of the thumb, nor most of my claims, it is reseasrch and data from evolutionary researchers. Ardi short thumb, Sediba 2.5my later long thumb. It suggests to me a mess on top of providing scant evidence that at 2mya sediba had ape feet. I am not going to debate your level of circular reasoning along with an inability to provide some evidence for your own stance rather than your opinion.

Feel free to speak to the Sediba data and other data I supplied that supports whatever your view of creation.

If the best you can do is say I am wrong because you said so then I suggest you may think about the word evidence and what that means.
 
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, I know you assert that. You're wrong, however. Evolutionary biology has vastly more evidence than creationism of any flavor.
and I and other creationists can refute it all. The thread topic suggests creationists do not rely on data for their various stances. I have prooved it wrong. I am afraid you will have to deal with it or refute me with more than yoou opinion.
What "drives" changing allele frequencies? Nothing has to drive it -- it's inevitable, in a finite population, because of sampling noise (i.e. genetic drift always occurs in real populations). A number of other specific processes can drive particular evolutionary changes: directional selection, biased gene conversion, other forms of meiotic drive, endosymbiosis.
as I said produce some evidence for any evolutionary stance, apart from 'it all evolved' and I will find research to refute or challenge it.
I just gave you my response. Please refute it.

Details are up for grabs. The basic picture is really quite well understood. There may be disagreement on the exact order in which particular phylogenetic branches diverged, but none on the bulk of the tree. There are disagreements about when lineages diverged -- was it twenty million years ago, or thirty? -- because the evidence is often spotty on the details. In particular, no one knows which fossils represent direct human ancestors, and which represent variously removed side branches. On the other hand, lots of things are not up for grabs. There is no doubt that chimpanzees (and bonobos) are our nearest living relatives, and that gorillas the second nearest. There is no doubt that the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged between 3 and 10 million years ago. (Contrast this with creationist theories, which can't agree on the age of the earth to within six orders of magnitude.)
Well then you will be able clarify why Sediba at near to 2myo has less human like hands than Ardi. It is fine to go on and on about how right you think you are but if you are unable to answer a few questions about the data I maintain all you have is non plausible scenarios to hold up as evidence
What this means is that you can't undermine evolutionary biology by trying to refute particular speculative reconstructions of bits of the tree, which is what you've been doing. If you could seriously attack major areas where results are firm, you'd be on to something; if you could show that humans were more closely related to cockroaches than to chimpanzees, or that fossil ordering was random, you'd be undercutting real biology. But you can't, because the firm conclusions are based on vast amounts of data. Instead, all you can do is poke at the edges.
Philosophize all you wish. When it come to the nuts and bolts of what holds your science together I cannot get a sensible response from anyone. I am debating specifics here as we have only post space and it seems no one can defend their stance with much more than their opinion
The other thing you haven't done is provide any evidence for creationism -- not against evolution, but for creationism. For something to be evidence for a theory, the theory has to predict something. What does creationism predict about anything? Particular creationist models predict specifics, e.g. YEC predicts that all species on earth are young. But you don't seem to be willing to take that kind of stand. Instead, you presented evidence for creationism that flatly contradicts a young earth, which is the model you favor -- and yet you still think it's evidence in favor of your view.

No I provided evidence that obviously demonstrates that mankind lived along side it supposed ancestors and intermediates. No one has offered any plausible evidence of how full sized human footprints can be made by a 3.5ft, curved fingered critter.

No one has offered any evidence to explain why any intelligent researcher would suggest Sediba is human, nor refute the research I provided. You have little evidence of feet and hands in the fossil record. The few bones you have demonstrate ape like traits right down to 2mya with Sediba, despite your researchers attempts to humanize every chard of bone or find. The only other evidence is the human footprints and they do not align with other fossil evidence found. The evolutionary solution was to put full sized human footprints onto a 3.5ft, curved fingered ape and hope for the best.

This is not finge dwelling. It is getting to the point. This is taking data researchers suggest supports evolution, that I say refutes it, and asking you to explain it.

I am not trying to totally refute evolution. rather I am refuting the thread topic in that there certainly is data that supports the various creationist paradigms and to suggest there is absolutely none is not substantiated.

The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences.

It does not matter that there are refutes to the evidences above, because there are refutes to the refutes and more refutes and on it goes even in evolutionary science. The point being without the presumption of evolution other evidence is certainly available also to support creation. The points I outline here are just a few specifics that I do not see any one refuting with anymore than their opinion.

If you are unable to solve the mystery of the thumb or how to put human feet on an ape, then just say so. Evolutionists do not have to like the evidence for creation nor agree with the interpretations of the data, but the evidence for creation is still going to be out there whether or not it is ignored.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well for a start researched the evidence that places mankind before its supposed ancestors.
Why is it, Astrid, if I want to research creationism, that I should start at the end of the process -- or in the middle of it -- and work backward?

I would rather start at the very beginning and check and see how the earth showed up first, before I start looking into how the things on the earth got started.

So with that in mind, how do you think our [lifeless] earth first appeared?
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No I provided evidence that obviously demonstrates that mankind lived along side it supposed ancestors and intermediates. No one has offered any plausible evidence of how full sized human footprints can be made by a 3.5ft, curved fingered critter.
No, you've challenged one uncertain reconstruction of a particular evolutionary lineage, based on some highly speculative inferences. If you think that's enough you overthrow an entire scientific field, you simply don't know what's involved.


This is not finge dwelling. It is getting to the point. This is taking data researchers suggest supports evolution, that I say refutes it, and asking you to explain it.
I don't do paleontology, so I don't offer speculation about that field. I'l be happy to explain any genetic data you have -- and I'd love to see a coherent creationist explanation for any interspecies genetic comparison.

I am not trying to totally refute evolution. rather I am refuting the thread topic in that there certainly is data that supports the various creationist paradigms and to suggest there is absolutely none is not substantiated.
In that case, you're failing, because you haven't explained why this piece of data makes any sense at all under any creationist paradigm. All you've done is attack evolution.

The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences.

It does not matter that there are refutes to the evidences above, because there are refutes to the refutes and more refutes and on it goes even in evolutionary science.
Sure, you can offer an argument for any position, no matter how absurd -- if you don't care about what's true. If you do, however, you have to look at arguments critically. And some of the argument in that link are just dreadful.
 
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
AV replies

Originally Posted by Astridhere
Well for a start researched the evidence that places mankind before its supposed ancestors.
Why is it, Astrid, if I want to research creationism, that I should start at the end of the process -- or in the middle of it -- and work backward?

I would rather start at the very beginning and check and see how the earth showed up first, before I start looking into how the things on the earth got started.

So with that in mind, how do you think our [lifeless] earth first appeared?

The thread topic does not request a theory of everything. It simply implies that creationists have no data to support their views. This is simply erraneous. I have provided evidence for my views.

The bible, creationists, evolutionists all agree the earth was lifeless and the universe was void at one time. Naturalists say they have a theiry that falls aprat at the singularity. I have a theory that suggests causation by a higher power that does not require a mathemeatical impossability, nor the need for fantstic and non plausible multi universes. But mostly I do not argue the begining as I cannot see why a dead horse is worth flogging, I guess. However, you may show your evidences and interpretations of data for you view, except you say you have none. A pity as I have plenty for mine.

I can start at the beginning if you please, as I said every support for evolution is refuteable or able to be reinterpreted to support creation.

In the very beginning evolutionists believed that a single cell 'evolved' quite unexplainedly into all life seen today.

Then big bad Horizontal Gene Tranfer made a mess of that irrefuteable evidence. The other irrefuteable evidence that backed up single cell abiogenesis was LUCA. Now your researchers are preaching many cells came unexpectedly into existence and LUCA is dead. So their goes that.


Horizontal gene transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Further more to that, by your own researchers testamony and reasonings all these prinitive cells were so similar that they were able to horizontally transfer genetic material. That is all that could be said to explain yet another bunch of data not supporting the single cell abiogenesis. Hence any life that 'evolves' on the earth is going to be based on much the same design, it is just the way it has to be designed and also why all life is similar. The fact is that some creature had to be more similar than another. It happens to be chimps genetically and orangutans morphologically. Similarity has nothing to do with common descent, and more to do with necessary design and life feeding from other life and the requirement that the genomic structure be such that we can uptake nutrients.

So now, yet again, I have answered your questions and you have not addressed mine re the thumb mystery or anything else.

sfs, whom I will reply to next also has had nothing to say to refute the data and interpretations I provided and seems to think saying I am wrong because he said so is some sort of evidence for his view.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, you've challenged one uncertain reconstruction of a particular evolutionary lineage, based on some highly speculative inferences. If you think that's enough you overthrow an entire scientific field, you simply don't know what's involved.

Oh just one uncertain reconstruction.. Well let me see, I have also dated birds to 212mya which throws your verterba phylogeny out of whack also. Shown how Indohyus is just a mouse deer and plenty more over the weeks. I am good at staying focused, and one piece of supporting data is sufficient to refute the thread topic. I do not need to provide a book nor answer your every aside to make my point, while you try to ignore it.

The point today is....

Producing evidence of fully human footprints and suggesting they cannot belong to a 3.5ft curved fingered ape is not highly speculative at all. Rather the suggestion that a 3.5ft curved fingers ape brained creature could possibly leave full sized human footprints appears to me to be a much more speculative and non plausible scenario.

I do not have to overthrow an entire scientific field all by myself I have plenty of evolutionary researchers as helpers like John Sandford ex evolutionist
.
Again the thread does not request a theory of everything. It suggests there is no data to support creation and I have provided some, like it or not, accept it or not.

I don't do paleontology, so I don't offer speculation about that field. I'l be happy to explain any genetic data you have -- and I'd love to see a coherent creationist explanation for any interspecies genetic comparison.
Oh do you mean the misleading 98% MTDNA similarity that was changed to 95% or the more holistic comparison of 30% which does not include the genome size difference or shall we talk about the remarkable differences in the Y chromosome that was compared to a chicken and a human, which was explained away by 'accelerated evolution' of genomic regions.

I would also love to see a coherent evolutionist explanation for anything that remains stable long enough to go to print.

In that case, you're failing, because you haven't explained why this piece of data makes any sense at all under any creationist paradigm. All you've done is attack evolution.
No I haven't just attacked evolution at all.. I think you just like to ignore data and insist your interpretations are the only ones. I will reiterate, if human footprints predate the relatives that are meant to give rise to humanity this is data that aligns with creation. Why? Because mankind has been dated to 3.7mya and there are no intermediates. No intermediates is evidence for creation, regardless of dating.

If Ardi, 4.4mya, had more human like hands than sediba at 2mya, close to erectus dating, and Sediba also had ape traits in the ankles then you have a mess you cannot explain. So demonstating the non plausibility of evolution is a separate thing to providing data and interpretations that support creation.

I cannot help but feel evolutionists are feeling threatened. None wish to address the evidence and all you seem to want to do is continue to ask questions and request more and more when you have given nothing of substance in return

Sure, you can offer an argument for any position, no matter how absurd (do you mean more absurd that human feet on an ape) -- if you don't care about what's true. If you do, however, you have to look at arguments critically. And some of the argument in that link are just dreadful.
As is said evolution is so unstable I hardly think evolutionists are in a possition to criticize. Not being able to defend your data re sediba further suggests perhaps evolutionary evidence is more lacking and unstable than you would like to openly admit. I can understand that!


So it seems that none of you are prepared to back the researchers work re Sediba nor refute it. None can explain how thumbs are short then long then short. None of you have provided plausible scenarios as to how human feet appear on afarensis, an ape no longer in the human line. So you are unable to defend your theories.

I have demonstrated there are no intermediates as human footprints predate the ancestors mankind was supposed to have evolved from. Creation predicts if it is true there will be no human intermediates and this is supported by the data. Hence there is solid data that supports creation. The fact that you or other evolutionists do not like my interpretation of the data is irrelevant and hardly surprising and unexpected.

There is science behind creationism and I have provided a little of much but sufficient to refute the thread derogatory claim against creationists.

I think it is evolutionists that really need to look at the so called science, or lack of it, behind your theories.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So now, yet again, I have answered your questions and you have not addressed mine re the thumb mystery or anything else.
Again -- no disrespect intended, but I am not going to discuss anything that happened in the universe after God completed His creation.

Not anymore in this thread, anyway.

If you would like to start or resurrect another thread concerning fossils that you think aren't quite human (or whatever), I'll be glad to tell you what I believe concerning them.

Most people here know where I stand concerning them (I think).

But I won't discuss them here -- it's antiproductive.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Again -- no disrespect intended, but I am not going to discuss anything that happened in the universe after God completed His creation.

Not anymore in this thread, anyway.

If you would like to start or resurrect another thread concerning fossils that you think aren't quite human (or whatever), I'll be glad to tell you what I believe concerning them.

Most people here know where I stand concerning them (I think).

But I won't discuss them here -- it's antiproductive.


Well then, perhaps you should not have suggested my speaking to the beginning instead of bones and the beginning as being so important to you.

I have produced many arguments in favour of creation, not least of all dating birds to 212mya, fully terrestrail tetrapods at 395mya shortly after the devonian which supports creation more than evolution, human footprints that predate the ancestors that gave rise to humanity that supports the creationist prediction of no intermediates, and much more.

Yet no evolutionist can answer any of my questions and concerns.

Interesting, don't you think?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟24,975.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I have produced many arguments in favour of creation, not least of all dating birds to 212mya, fully terrestrail tetrapods at 395mya shortly after the devonian which supports creation more than evolution, human footprints that predate the ancestors that gave rise to humanity that supports the creationist prediction of no intermediates, and much more.

Yet no evolutionist can answer any of my questions and concerns.

Interesting, don't you think?
You have produced absolutely no evidences to support your claims.....You were not very good at Biology in school were you:doh:
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yet no evolutionist can answer any of my questions and concerns.

Interesting, don't you think?
I've been here for over five years, and I can tell you that if you think you are going to get your questions and concerns answered, then you had better think again.

The only time you'll get an immediate and straightforward answer is when you say something wrong; then they'll be all over you like green on grass.

But if you make a good point for your belief, you'll beg and beg until someone finally answers -- but not before he changes the wording of your question to suit his answer.
 
Upvote 0

Nostromo

Brian Blessed can take a hike
Nov 19, 2009
2,343
56
Yorkshire
✟17,838.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I've been here for over five years, and I can tell you that if you think you are going to get your questions and concerns answered, then you had better think again.
You've changed your tune all of a sudden. You don't even think her questions and concerns are valid since there is no evidence for creation.
 
Upvote 0

Nostromo

Brian Blessed can take a hike
Nov 19, 2009
2,343
56
Yorkshire
✟17,838.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Interesting, don't you think?
The only thing that's interesting about it is that you seem to have completely lost sight of the big picture.

Even if we accept your dates we get:
Billions of years of single cell life.
395 Mya tetrapods appear.
212 Mya birds appear.
<10 Mya humans appear.

How does that match any version of the Creation narrative you've ever read?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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."
You mean like how evolutionists reject what we learned via the Bible and instead continue to believe in macro-evolution? Even worse, they claim it is "The Truth."?

Like I said, we are all alike in how we apply of faith.
 
Upvote 0

Psudopod

Godspeed, Spacebat
Apr 11, 2006
3,015
164
Bath
✟11,638.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
In Relationship
Originally Posted by Psudopod
Thanks for the laugh, I needed that this morning! "Ape does not meet the criteria for human..." Hilarious.

No I'll say for about the 10th time to you. The difference between man and ape (that incluces chimps for your information) do not have sophisticated speech and high reasoning ability.

The best you have been able to offer as a refute is to ignore my reply, take joy over offering woffly criticisms, never refute this difference, nor do you ever address the evidence I present.

It is obvious you are unable to and that is what is hilarious.

You said apes are not humans. That's like saying dogs are not dalmations. If you can't see why this is so very wrong, then, well, I just don't know what to say. You've completely ignored when I tried to explain why your point about language is completely irrelevant.

IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT HUMANS HAVE ABILITIES THAT OTHER APES DO NOT.

I apologise to the rest of the forum for the bold caps lock, I've never had to do that before, but I've never met a creationist who misunderstood such a fundamental point.

Astridhere - dalmations have spots, border collies do not. Does this mean dalmations are not dogs?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mzungu
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟24,975.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You said apes are not humans. That's like saying dogs are not dalmations. If you can't see why this is so very wrong, then, well, I just don't know what to say. You've completely ignored when I tried to explain why your point about language is completely irrelevant.

IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT HUMANS HAVE ABILITIES THAT OTHER APES DO NOT.

I apologise to the rest of the forum for the bold caps lock, I've never had to do that before, but I've never met a creationist who misunderstood such a fundamental point.

Astridhere - dalmations have spots, border collies do not. Does this mean border collies are not dogs?
Quite right! Humans are Apes and in fact we belong to the African Great Ape family. Apes are NOT Human!
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.