Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[mzungu]

So does she not know the difference between an ape and her husband? Or does she just not like man kind?

This woman dedicated her whole life researching Chimpanzees. Her husband was an excellent wildlife photographer and has passed away. You betray a lack of sensitivity towards a person you do not know.

Shame on you!

 

[No Time]

I do not think one needs evidence to have faith.

100% right, you only need faith in the 'absence' of evidence, if you have evidence then faith can be dispensed with,
there is no evidence that the Bible is true or that there is a God hence the need for faith.

 

[Loudmouth]

The facts of the Bible are to a Christian as the facts of nature are to a scientist. We may at times interpret those facts wrong but the Bible still remains a book of facts. And any scientific theory must fit those biblical facts or the scientific theory can take a hike.

Religious dogma at its best.

Imagine if a court of law worked like this. "Your honor, the defendant is guilty. If the facts show that the defendant is not guilty then the facts can take a hike."

Shared orthologous ERV's between humans and other apes demonstrates that they share a common ancestor. Period.

 

[AV1611VET]

Under normal circumstances we can almost convince ourselves that we are not animals but when we are in danger our animal instincts kick in automatically.

Who says these are 'animal instincts'?

Father Christmas, who do you think?

I think whoever classified us as 'animals' must have said that, but the fact that you don't know tells me a lot about what you're preaching; viz., you're just parroting (or aping) what you've heard.

In short, if you can't tell me who says these are 'animal instincts', then your philosophy can take a hike.

(But for the record, even if you could tell me, it can still take a hike.)

... and another thing, just like the other apes we all die.

Well color me surprised -- I wonder where death came from?

If that fact is not to your liking may I suggest you get yourself a God who can make all of these unwanted facts simply go away?

We've already got each other, thank you.

John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

 

[Loudmouth]

You can see the short thumb and very human like hand. Ardi is dated to 4.4mya and does not appear to have curved fingers

The drawing does show that Ardi had curved fingers, and even humans have curvature. You can check yourself. The human relaxed hand does have curvature. The curvatuer in Australopithecines is actually intermediate between humans and other apes.

Then there is this Australopithecus sediba hand below that displays once again a long thumb dated to 1.9mya. Some ankle bones were also found demonstrating ape like features.

That's the whole point. Intermediates should have basal ape features. That's what makes them intermediate.

How could a reasearcher describe these fingers as human like, when clearly they are not human like at all?

They look human like to me. What is your beef?

Sediba's skull looks similar to Turkana Boy's skull and Sediba has a small brain capacity of 420cc.

What is the cranial capacity for Turkana boy, and how does it compare to modern humans and other apes? It is intermediate, is it not?

Clearly if Sediba at 1.9mya had ape like traits in her feet, then it is unlikely that Afarensis could have more human feet than sediba at 3.2mya.

So a transitional has to be identical to modern humans in every way?

Now we know Ardi, Lucy and Erectus are now challenged as direct human ancestors.

But they are not challenged as transitional fossils. These fossils contain a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. That is what makes them transitional.

Why would an evolutionary researcher suggest Sediba is in the human line, when quite clearly, the hands appear even less human than evolutionists think Ardi's hands were?

Ardi is the one that is probably not in the direct human line. H. erectus is the strongest candidate out of all of them for being in the direct human lineage. For the other fossils, I would say that there is not enough evidence to include them in the direct human line, but they do have features that are transitional that they would have inherited from their common ancestor with modern humans.

Also why would evolutionists not credit similar Sediba style ape feet and hands to erectus dated around the same age? Do you really believe that in around 200,000-500,000 years Sediba's ape hand could have evolved into a fully modern hand with a reduced thumb as well as the assumed modern feet in Turkana Boy?

It is also possible that Sebida is a cousin to H. erectus and has preserved features from a more ancient common ancestor with H. erectus. This is something that Darwin discussed quite a bit, the preservation of transitional features in collateral lineages.

I seriously believe there is much data that supports creation and discredits evolution.

We know that you believe it. However, you have yet to demonstrate how this evidence supports magical poofing.

 

[Loudmouth]

It appears you have no idea what a vestigal organ means.

Irony at its best. Vestigial means that an organ has no function OR A RUDIMENTARY FUNCTION compared to the same organ in other species. That is the definition that all biologists use. The human appendix is most assuredly vestigial because it does not participate in the digestion of cellulose as it does in other species. The only function that the appendix has is a very rudimentary one. It is vestigial. Period.

Furthermore, there is the extensor coccygis. This muscle spans a fused joint in the tail bone. It serves zero purpose as a muscle. In other species this muscle lifts the tail. In humans, it can not do anything because it spans a fused joint.

Again you demonstrate beyond doubt you need to catch up on your science. Of course your researchers used to call the non coding regions of the genome junk dna. I cannot believe you have never heard of this.

Researchers have removed millions of bases of junk DNA from the mouse genome and the mice were unaffected:

"The functional importance of the roughly 98% of mammalian genomes not corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined1. Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts2, 3, 4 can be well tolerated by an organism. We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice. Together, the two deleted segments harbour 1,243 non-coding sequences conserved between humans and rodents (more than 100 base pairs, 70% identity). Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially ‘disposable DNA’ in the genomes of mammals."
Access : Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice : Nature

Neanderthal had a larger brain that we do, was initially sketched as an apeman, when now even your researchers have found neanderthal has the human variant of FOXp2 and was perfectly human.

So are neanderthals transitional?

So the point was that you have no hairy stooped over ape men around as they have all mysteriously gone extinct.

Since when is extinction mysterious?

 

[mzungu]

BBC - Earth News - Bonobo chimps filmed shaking their head to 'say no'

 

[Astridhere]

We don't act like other apes for the reason that Astridhere said - we have larger brains and language skills which give us our sentiance. That's not to say we're completely different though.

Apes and mankind have similarities today. Frogs and mankind have similarities, humans and whales have similarities. So finding any ape and using any similarity possible to conclude human lineage results in just what we see.... A turnstyle of human ancestors coming in and out of the human lineage, supposed human ancestors being reclassified as apes, and 100 years of retractions, changes and instability. This is evolutionary science.

It does not seem to matter how clearly creationists can differntiate mankind from beast, evolutionists will continue to call themselves apes because of 4 limbs and a head, despite the 30% minimum, comparative difference, despite all the huge amount of data that further differentiates mankind from chimp. Evolutionists will continue to see themselves as apes no matter what.

It also does not matter that none could take up my challenge of the 'mysterious thumb', nor explain full sized human footprints in an 3.5ft curved fingered ape, nor how birds dated to 212mya aligns with evolution, nor how fully terrestrial tetrapods dated to 395mya, pre tiktaalik, aligns with their current verterbra phylogeny, despite the instability of current thinking, evolutionists will continue to believe their non plausible scenarios as explanations of the data are 'real'.

So I am not concerned, and nor should any creationists be concerned.

The only defence an evolutionist can mount is to ignore the challenges put to them, as they did mine, ask never ending questions of us in the hope of stumbling creationists while unable to answer those challenges posed to them, and offer non plausible scenarios as interpretations of the data.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

So I am not concerned, and nor should any creationists be concerned.

It's easy to think you're right when you don't fully understand the ToE. If you spend sufficient time studying ToE, attempting to truly become knowledgeable, you will become concerned. You will most likely be shocked by the lengths professional cdesign proponentsists will go to lie and twist, and just plain not understand science. At this point in your journey, you will probably come to the conclusion that "Creationism" will be the single most downfall to mainstream western Christianity.

 

[Astridhere]

[/color]

Irony at its best. Vestigial means that an organ has no function OR A RUDIMENTARY FUNCTION compared to the same organ in other species. That is the definition that all biologists use. The human appendix is most assuredly vestigial because it does not participate in the digestion of cellulose as it does in other species. The only function that the appendix has is a very rudimentary one. It is vestigial. Period.
I know what vestigal means. However what you missed is the RESEARCH I posted as opposed to outdated 20 year old information.

Here is another link and extract...maybe you will read it this time...

"For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals.
What is the function of the human appendix? Did it once have a purpose that has since been lost? : Scientific American

Appendix are no longer extracted as they used to be as their function has been realised.

Now, if you disagree with this professor and other evolutionary researchers that come up with this stuff, you have best go tell them they are idiots and you know better than they.
Furthermore, there is the extensor coccygis. This muscle spans a fused joint in the tail bone. It serves zero purpose as a muscle. In other species this muscle lifts the tail. In humans, it can not do anything because it spans a fused joint.

The extensor coccygis does have a function. You may remember 20 years ago a vestigal organ was an organ left over from evolution that had NO function. In response to researchers actually finding important functions in these supposed vestigal organs the definition had to change to save your precious theory. Now vestigal means a similar organ with a different function. Rather than this being evidence for evolution it is actually evidence for creation. That evidence being that God has used a similar design, as He does, but created it to perform a different function. This goes for most of what evolutionists try to flogg off to the public as 'the same'. Indeed not only do similar organs perform different functions but also genes that evolutionists call 'similar' are not similar at all, as they perform totally different functions in many cases.

All evolutionists are left with is yet another non plausible scenario of how a similar organ 'evolved' totally different functions as if by magic.


Researchers have removed millions of bases of junk DNA from the mouse genome and the mice were unaffected:
So what..all that proves is there was no genomic evolution as despite the so called evolutionary distance between a mouse and a human the genes will still express in another species...where is this dynamic change and the evolution of genetic material?...Gone!
"The functional importance of the roughly 98% of mammalian genomes not corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined1. Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts2, 3, 4 can be well tolerated by an organism. We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice. Together, the two deleted segments harbour 1,243 non-coding sequences conserved between humans and rodents (more than 100 base pairs, 70% identity). Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially ‘disposable DNA’ in the genomes of mammals."
Access : Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice : Nature

The point being of course that the mice could survive witht he deletions. The research could not tell what impact this would have in future generations or if the ability to adapt had been deleted from the genome. So basically it proves nothing more than researchers like to waste their grant money.

Secondly, creationists have always predicted there could be no junk DNA and that is exactly what your researchers are continuing to validate day by day.

So are neanderthals transitional?

No they are Nephalim, human but different, just like one would expect. Most certainly they are not human ape hairy bent over intermediates as evolutionists used to believe not that long ago.


Since when is extinction mysterious? Extinction is not the mystery. The mystery is the non plausible scenario that speaks to hundreds or thousands of supposed small brained hairy, tree climbing, bipedal human intermediates all of which went extinct. Too bad for evolutionists!

So basically everything I said still stands as you are out of touch with recent research, it seems.

 

[Doveaman]

The theory predicted that we should find intermediates, and then we found them. How is that a fantasy?

They are only intermediates to an evolutionist. To everyone else they are just bones.

The Bible predicts God expanded the universe. Is God a fantasy?

“I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens...My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.” (Isa 44:24, 45:12).

How did you determine that? Through evidence?

How did you determine the innocent man was guilty? Through evidence?

No, we aren't. ERV's are still smoking gun evidence of shared ancestry.

ERV’s are evidence for shared design.

How do you determine that an idea is wrong?

In science it is done by trial and error.

The fact is, an innocent man was condemned to death based on your flawed interpretation of observations. Any correct interpretation that follows isn’t going to bring back that innocent man. But thank God for the resurrection.

Why don’t you just accept that what you call evidence isn’t always evidence, but only your flawed interpretation of observations. Every scientific theory that is falsified was based on your flawed interpretation of observations, not on evidence. And this happens often because you guys are always falsifying your theories that were supported by "evidence". [FONT=&quot]

You have already shown that there is no fossil that you would accept as supporting evolution. Perhaps it is time to take a closer look at your state of denial.

[/FONT]You are missing the point. Every scientific theory that has been falsified was said to have evidence to support it. In science, having evidence to support a theory doesn’t make the theory correct. So your claim to have evidence to support a theory is meaningless.

[FONT=&quot]We could start with cosmic microwave background. This was predicted years ago, and now those predicts have been supported in spades. In the graph below is the BB predicted black body spectrum of the CMB, and the data points are the measured spectrum of the CMB. As you can see, they overlap quite nicely:[/FONT]

*Snip*

All I see is a bunch of letters, numbers and lines made to fit a fantasy accepted by the gullible. I don’t see any evidence for Big Bang except for this:

“I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens...My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.” (Isa 44:24, 45:12).

 

[Loudmouth]

"For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals.

People are born without appendixes, and they do just fine. Again, this is a rudimentary function.

The extensor coccygis does have a function.

It is a muscle that does not move anything. It is vestigial.

The point being of course that the mice could survive witht he deletions. The research could not tell what impact this would have in future generations or if the ability to adapt had been deleted from the genome. So basically it proves nothing more than researchers like to waste their grant money.

"Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice."

If this doesn't falsify your junk DNA argument then nothing will. They delted nearly 2 million DNA bases from the mouse genome and they were indistinguishable from mice with that had the junk DNA.

Secondly, creationists have always predicted there could be no junk DNA and that is exactly what your researchers are continuing to validate day by day.

You state this right after I show you a study that demonstrated exactly the opposite? Really?

mystery is the non plausible scenario that speaks to hundreds or thousands of supposed small brained hairy, tree climbing, bipedal human intermediates all of which went extinct.

Where did you show that it was non-plausible?

Let me see if I have this right. You consider extinction of species to be mysterious even though it has been observed time and time again. At the same time, you fully accept magical poofing of species that has never been observed. Do I have that right?

 

[Doveaman]

Quite right! Humans are Apes and in fact we belong to the African Great Ape family. Apes are NOT Human!

Quite wrong! Humans are not apes and in fact we belong to the Adams family. Apes are far more STUPID than humans.

Chimpanzees, unlike their close relatives the Bonobo); do much of what we do in their societies: Murder, rape, gangs, bullying, etc.

Isn't murder and rape a crime. Do chimpanzees commit crimes?

How is it that we humans allow apes to get away with crimes against each other but condemn ourselves to death for those same crimes?

It seems that we have not lost these traits

It seems that we have developed these traits.

It seems that our ancient ancestor ate a particular fruit and caught the chimp-syndrome and this syndrome was passed on to his descendents. This explains why humans commit the same crimes as chimps.

People diagnosed with chimp-syndrome should not be convicted of any crime they commit since chimps are not convicted. It's a violation of our ape rights.

 

[Doveaman]

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

IT SURE DOES MATTER.

Humans are composed of a physical body and of an intelligent spirit. It is body and spirit that makes us human, and not just body alone. Therefore humans are not apes.

“There is a spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding.” (Job 32:8).

“The LORD, who stretches out the heavens...and who forms the spirit of man within him.” (Zech 12:1).

 

[Doveaman]

We don't act like other apes for the reason that Astridhere said - we have larger brains and language skills which give us our sentiance. That's not to say we're completely different though.

Why did humans grow a bigger brain and become so smart while all the apes remained as stupid as their ancestors?

 

[Loudmouth]

They are only intermediates to an evolutionist. To everyone else they are just bones.

So please tell me what features a fossil must have in order for you to accept it as transitional.

The Bible predicts God expanded the universe.

It says stretched in the past tense. The expansion of the universe is ongoing. The Bible has it wrong.

The Bible also describes the heavens as being comprised of a firmament above which sits the waters of heaven. The Bible thinks that the stars were embedded in a hard material that was holding back water. How do you explain this?

How did you determine the innocent man was guilty? Through evidence?

ERV’s are evidence for shared design.

Do you know why you and your siblings share the same ERV's at the same position in your genomes? One hint . . . it isn't because of shared design.

The fact is, an innocent man was condemned to death based on your flawed interpretation of observations.

How do you determine if an interpretation is flawed?

Why don’t you just accept that what you call evidence isn’t always evidence, but only your flawed interpretation of observations.

The problem is that you reject the only method we have of determing whether or not an interpretation is flawed.

Every scientific theory that is falsified was based on your flawed interpretation of observations, not on evidence.

So how were these theories falsified? Through evidence, were they not?

Can you name one single scientific theory you do accept, or do you reject all of them?

And this happens often because you guys are always falsifying your theories that were supported by "evidence".

Yes, because you will never have all of the evidence. No single theory in science is proven. They are all tentative, and they are all imperfect in one way or another. That is what happens when you deal honestly with the evidence. Sometimes you make bad conclusions that are made obvious by further evidence. At least scientists have the honesty to admit it.

So your claim to have evidence to support a theory is meaningless.

At least we have evidence. That's one better than having faith. What happens when a faith based belief is shown to be wrong through new evidence? From the appearances of this forum, you ignore the evidence and keep on believing false beliefs.

All I see is a bunch of letters, numbers and lines made to fit a fantasy accepted by the gullible.

Another creationist blinded by his ego.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why did humans grow a bigger brain and become so smart while all the apes remained as stupid as their ancestors?

Humans acquired mutations that other species did not, and we were filling a niche that selected for these mutations. One of the things limiting the cranium size of other apes is their food. They tend to eat food that takes a lot of mastication, hence they have very large and powerful jaw muscles. Large and powerful jaw muscles require a very thick and well supported bony anchor which happens to be the cranium. A large, thin cranium like that in modern humans could not act as an anchor for these muscles.

Humans, on the other hand, acquired a mutation the resulted in a weaker jaw muscle. This did not get in the way of our ancestor's diet, so it was passed on. The result was fewer requirements for the anchoring of the jaw muscles.

 

[Loudmouth]

Humans are composed of a physical body and of an intelligent spirit.

Based on what evidence?

 

[Astridhere]

The drawing does show that Ardi had curved fingers, and even humans have curvature. You can check yourself. The human relaxed hand does have curvature. The curvatuer in Australopithecines is actually intermediate between humans and other apes.
I requested an explanation of the mystery of the thumb. Actually apes have all different varieties of curvature as not all apes are tree swingers. Researchers however choose to use a knucklewalking tree swinger example as the outgroup for comparison. There is more glory in finding an ape and strawgrabbing the human similarities than to find an ape that is just an ape. This is too bad because the serious gap in your chimp ancestors basically says it all.....
.
Now explain why what I actually requested. Sediba, about the only fossil with ankle bones, displays tree climbing ability in both feet and hands at 2mya and has evolved a thumb longer than either Ardi or mankind yet is dated in the middle? Do you agree or disgaree that Sediba belongs in the human line?

I say she will be soon railroaded to the garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past off as irrefuteable evidence for evolution just like Ardi, Lucy and probably erectus. You do know that erectus is now being challenged and has been found to be very sexually dimorphic and even less human that thought.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070813093132.htm

.and all this made up from a few skull caps that could belong to a variety of apes like the female Bornean orang.

That's the whole point. Intermediates should have basal ape features. That's what makes them intermediate.
No actually, apes have similarities to mankind today. Evolutionsists just pick and choose the similarities as a straw grab. This is evidenced by the many cousins and NO direct ancestors that remain stable for any period of time. Many of the reconstructions made up as evidence for evolution are from a single bone, given a complete body and life story to go with it.


They look human like to me. What is your beef?
Well, you think you are an ape, just because an unstable science tells you so.


What is the cranial capacity for Turkana boy, and how does it compare to modern humans and other apes? It is intermediate, is it not?
No actually I do not believe these convoluted algorithms say anything about grey matter at all. I think it is about scientists wasting their money grabbing at straws.

Various sources list the maximum brain size of gorillas as 650 cc, 700 cc, or in the case of one exceptional specimen, 752 cc (Tobias, 1964). There is great variety. However the variety of ape and mankind is not accounted for in algorithmic insertions values. Turkana Boy had a supposed measurement of 880cc. The rest is even more guess work. So Turkana Boy is not so far outside of the range of a large ape.

Your researchers cannot agree on Turkana Boys age (8-15). They can no more than guess alot of this stuff and try very hard to humanize every fossil ape.


So a transitional has to be identical to modern humans in every way?

No..you guys need transitional, even if it is just for a year or so as flavour of the month.

But they are not challenged as transitional fossils. These fossils contain a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. That is what makes them transitional.

In that case chimps are also transitional are they? No, they are not as what your research clearly defines is that mankind is not descendant from any ape species alive today. Hence the requirement for you to find ancestors that keep disappearing from the human lineage.

Ardi is the one that is probably not in the direct human line. H. erectus is the strongest candidate out of all of them for being in the direct human lineage. For the other fossils, I would say that there is not enough evidence to include them in the direct human line, but they do have features that are transitional that they would have inherited from their common ancestor with modern humans.
You can find similar connections to anything eg mankind and frog legs. Every variety of ape is going to share some similarities. So basically it is an open book to pick and choose what you wish when you wish and herald this as evidence for evolution even if it is only for a short while.

Do you not think that any of the discarded intermediates are the ancestors of any of todays apes? Be careful here because I believe I can produce research to say some are. Why do you think your chimpanzee and other primates do not have good fossil evidence? I say it is because apes looked very different once upon a time and every variety of ape that does not resemble todays varieties are shoveled into the human line. My evidence is your lack of fossil evidence for any other primate apart for mankind.


It is also possible that Sebida is a cousin to H. erectus and has preserved features from a more ancient common ancestor with H. erectus. This is something that Darwin discussed quite a bit, the preservation of transitional features in collateral lineages.
Possibly, likely and maybe is NOT science. Any non pluasible scenario does not give a theory merit.

This researcher says Sediba is in the human line. Other esearch I have posted suggests erectus is not. So do you disagree with this very well credialled scientist?


We know that you believe it. However, you have yet to demonstrate how this evidence supports magical poofing.

No the thread does not ask for a theory of everything. This is just as well as that would be hypocritical given the stae of TOE and the unanswered questions and contradictions.

What I have done is provide an interpretation of data as it aligns with my creationist view. And that my friend, discredits the thread basis that creationists are unable to base their views on data.

Data is data. It is open to interpretation, Evolutionist interpretations of the evidence/data are not the only interpretations. You do not have to agree, nor do you have to become a creationist, but to contiue to suggest creationists have no more than their bible to produce as evidence is cruel, ignorant and just a game evos like to play in these hate fest type threads.

If evolutionists want to continue the catch a creationist out game, in spite of the state of your science, then you will go ahead. The point being no matter what you do or say, there is data that supports creationist paradigms. Do evolutionists have too much pride to admit that creationists are able to interpret some data in a creationist paradigm? Will that take the fun out of your life?

To continue to sprook that this is not the case is no more than a demonstration of stubborn ignorance and perhaps evoutionists feeling threatened by the creationist interpretations creationists can align with the data.

I do not wish to be impolite. Hovever my evidence of 3.7myo human footprints predating the supposed ancestors mankind supposedly descended from is good evidence to support the creationist prediction that if creation is true there will be no intermediates. That is an interpretation. You do not have to like it, nor agree. What you do need to do is provide evidence that falsifies that prediction. Providing a 3.5ft curved fingered ape that you believed was not bipedal up until the discovery of the footprints is hardly a falsification. Rather it further highlights the desperation of scientists trying to work it all out.

Evidence of perfect bird footprints dated to 212myo is also good coroborating data that suggests birds are being found earlier and earlier and aligns with birds being created after fish. Your scenario that these were made by bird like dinosaurs is your interpretation. However, as they look just like the bird prints one sees today, there is no evidence to suggest they were not simply what they seem to be, modern bird footprints, apart from the fact that it blows away the dino to bird thing which many researchers are now challenging anyway.


Fully terrestrial tetrapod footprints dated to 395mya just after the devonian blows tiktaalik, your famous sea/land intermediate irrefuteable evidence for evolution, into oblivion. This is data that is a further support to the instant creation of land animals. Why? Because yet again there are no transitionals as creation would predict while the descendants again predate the ancestors. And.... the sudden appearance of creatures in the fossil record is what a creationist expects to find.

There are plenty more with helium dating and so much more in the links I have provided and more that I have not posted. However this thread does not hypocritically request a creationist theory of everything as evolutionists are also unable to provide same. It does suggest that there is no data that supports creationist views and that, my friend, is far from the truth.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Quite wrong! Humans are not apes and in fact we belong to the Adams family. Apes are far more STUPID than humans.

Actually, it Addams family.