Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[sfs]

Yep I did it only yesterday...again, as I have done for weeks.

Hint... human footprints, 3.7myo, that cannot belong to acurved fingered 3.5ft ape, afarensis, that is no longer in the human line, demonstrating that mankind predates its supposed ancestors indicating there are no human ape intermediates, a creationist prediction.

Sorry, you still don't get it. You introduce the evidence, use it to attack evolution, and then your argument is that creationism predicts evolution to be wrong. That's not what I'm looking for, because there are vast numbers of evolutionary theories that would also be consistent with these data; evidence against a particular evolutionary theory is not evidence for creationism. Evidence for creationism would be something that creationism predicts, that evolution doesn't predict, and that you actually find in the data. If any form of creationism predicts 3.7 mya footprints, then you're in great shape. Otherwise, you're still wasting everyone's time -- this is not how you support a theory.

Hint... 212myo perfectly modern looking bird footprints evidence of a thriving population of birds, that not only destroys evolutionary dino to bird theory but also supports the creation by pushing back the evidence of birds closer to the devonian.

Great. Now we're getting somewhere. You mean that there's a theory of creationism that puts the creation of birds in the Devonian. Right? Where can we read about this theory? Or are you still laboring under the mistaken idea that any evidence against an evolutionary theory is evidence for creationism?

Hint...fully terrestrial tetrapod footprints 395mya, again predating the supposed intermediate Tiktaalic, and demonstrating the sudden appearance of land animals soon after the Devonian.

Now creationism predicts the sudden appearance of land animals after the Devonian? (And why is this even in here, anyway? Evolutionary intermediates can easily exist later than more derived species. This one doesn't even constitute a refutation of any part of evolution, much less support for creation.)

Do you think that if you totally ignore this interpretation of the data, continue to request it every day, and keep spooking that I have supplied no data to support my interpretations, that they will conveniently go away? They wont.

No, I think if I keep asking, you'll keep saying the same things over and over, never understanding that you're doing nothing to support creationism. But I'm cynical that way.

Data is data. There are evolutionary scenarios to explain it and there are creationist scenarios to explain it.

Based on everything you've written, and everything I've read about creationism, that's false. If that's true, then tell us what the creationist scenarios are. Be specific: what creationist scenario puts birds close to the Devonian?

 

[Split Rock]

Yep I did it only yesterday...again, as I have done for weeks.

Hint... human footprints, 3.7myo, that cannot belong to acurved fingered 3.5ft ape, afarensis, that is no longer in the human line, demonstrating that mankind predates its supposed ancestors indicating there are no human ape intermediates, a creationist prediction.

What do footprints have to do with an ape with curved fingers?? Also, they were not fully human footprints. I thought bearing false witness was a sin.

Hint... 212myo perfectly modern looking bird footprints evidence of a thriving population of birds, that not only destroys evolutionary dino to bird theory but also supports the creation by pushing back the evidence of birds closer to the devonian.

Once again, they were not "perfectly modern looking bird" footprints. They were described as "bird like." There's that bearing false witness issue again.

Hint...fully terrestrial tetrapod footprints 395mya, again predating the supposed intermediate Tiktaalic, and demonstrating the sudden appearance of land animals soon after the Devonian.

More of the same. No one described these as "fully terrestrial." I already explained how a lack of webbing in the impression tells us nothing, nor does a lack of a tail impression.

Why do you keep misrepresenting these fossils???

Do you think that if you totally ignore this interpretation of the data, continue to request it every day, and keep spooking that I have supplied no data to support my interpretations, that they will conveniently go away? They wont.

Do you think if you keep ignoring the preponderance of the evidence that supports common descent that it will all go away?

Data is data. There are evolutionary scenarios to explain it and there are creationist scenarios to explain it. Get used to it, because ignoring it does not mean the thread topic has not been satisfactorily falsified.

You still haven't shown any data supporting creationism. Continuing to pretend that you have does not mean that creationism wasn't falsified back in the 19th century.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

Go ahead and differentiate mankind from "beast." Show us the "huge amount of data" that further differentiates us from chimps. Where is it? You don't even know what an "ape" is. Your description would cover all tetrapods, not just apes.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hint... human footprints, 3.7myo, that cannot belong to acurved fingered 3.5ft ape, afarensis,

False dichotomy. Not afarensis does not equal H. sapiens. You still have not shown that those footprints are from H. sapiens.

Hint... 212myo perfectly modern looking bird footprints evidence of a thriving population of birds, that not only destroys evolutionary dino to bird theory but also supports the creation by pushing back the evidence of birds closer to the devonian.

212 my before present is 140 my after the end of the Devonian. Also, modern looking does not equal modern species. If the split between non-avian dinosaurs and birds is pushed back a few million years how does this support creationism? How does this evidence magical poofing?

Hint...fully terrestrial tetrapod footprints 395mya, again predating the supposed intermediate Tiktaalic, and demonstrating the sudden appearance of land animals soon after the Devonian.

Tiktaalik is transitional, and tetrapod footprints predating Tiktaalik does not change this. You keep confusing ancestral with transitional. This in no way supports magical poofing.

Do you think that if you totally ignore this interpretation of the data, continue to request it every day, and keep spooking that I have supplied no data to support my interpretations, that they will conveniently go away? They wont.

How do you determine from a fossil that it was poofed into being?

There are evolutionary scenarios to explain it and there are creationist scenarios to explain it.

What scenario could creationism not explain?

 

[Delphiki]

Yet it straw grabs and presumes the sex lives of creatures to support the data that does not simply align with evolution.

Evolution doesn't support evolution because it presumes that sexual creatures have sex? Are you for real?

Apes need reasoning ability to give consent. The basis of protecting people with coginitive disabilities today.

Which is why I said as long as all parties in a marriage are able to give consent, then I couldn't care less if they get married. Please read what you're replying to... Also, learn how to multi-quote. Thanks.

Disability does not determine the species range.

Correct. I wasn't the one to suggest otherwise, dad was. He insinuated that mutes are unable to give consent merely because they don't speak.

Homo erectus, Turkana Boy, was found with a small neural tube and was therefore incapable of sophisticated language, had a brain not that much bigger than a male gorilla, still had an ape protruding jaw far outside the variation seen in mankind. This creature could not reason and therefore could not give consent. Nor could it build stone huts dated to 1.7mya, nor could it make and control fire, a complex task requiring high reasoning capability. The whole of the evolutionary evidence for transition from ape to man is based non plausible scenarios and misrepresented fossils.

That's fine for homo erectus, but, again, if you read what you're replying to, I used homo neanderthalensis as an example, whom likely would have been able to not only reason, but according to more recent discoveries, may have been able to clearly speak as well. If neanderthals were still around today, and people wanted to marry them, it wouldn't bother be int he slightest.

If a man were to rape an ape. It would still be rape regardless of the fact that the ape would not understand the concept.

You're missing the point of the discussion, which is: man is an ape. If man rapes anything it's still rape. This whole subject came up because dad doesn't want to admit that human beings are a species of ape.

If one believes in evolution they likely think star trek is real...

What in the world gave you that idea? I'm a huge fan of Trek, but I don't know anyone who thinks it's real. Leave the believing in fantasy as reality to the religious.

you know the universe is strewen with the precursors to life sprook..too bad you haven't found so much as a bacteria

Ok. Now, you must be from another planet to think nobody's found bacteria before.

.the fact that your researchers can even suggest viable interbreeding between human and Neanderthal is testimony to NO SPECIATION and NO EVOLUTION...get it? Neanderthal is not part human, nor an intermediate, but fully human including the human variant of Foxp2 gene associated with language capability. Neanderthal were strong and robust, co existed with homo sapiens which aligns with 'the men of fame', Nephalim. Many researchers now classify Neanderthl as Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis.

Yes they have too distinct of features and are different enough to be considered homo sapiens sapiens. I bet in another argument you'll tell me there are no transitions, am I right?

You're simply wrong. There are plenty of species today than can interbreed with their various sub-species. Mutant offspring even occur between different species! It then stands to reason that infertile offspring of homo sapiens and homo neanderthalis wouldn't get to procreate, yet these are distinctly different from homo sapiens.

Too bad your researchers are still debating if indeed any genomic material is shared. One can pick and choose their research to aside any story.

Good thing I'm sticking to my story as opposed to trying to refute transition and close-relation in the same post. And researchers aren't debating, they're researching. At least scientists can admit they don't know something for certain. So what do they do? Continue to try and find the answers -- as opposed to just saying "Goddunnit".

The point being if such a conundrum exists over species 30,000yo, what chance have your researchers of guessing anything correctly that is millions of years old. Oh.. that right...they can't as demonstrated by 100 years of mistakes and changes.
BBC News | SCI/TECH | Neanderthals not human ancestors

The beauty of your unstable science is that one can pull so much conflicting research and rabbits out of hats that one can just about support any view.

The scientific knowledge doesn't change to refute the arguments of creationist idiots, it changes as newer data is found and better technology is developed for testing. That's why it works.

Your researchers have no idea what population size was at any point in the past. Rather the population size is made up as insertion values to give the results your researchers look for.

Did I say that? No. I said the genetics of the human species can only be narrowed down to a pool of about 10,000 individuals. We do know that human population thinned out, but of course, nobody knows the exact number. And if that's what you're riding on to explain that science is flawed or stupid, then how about you give us a number?

Great science!
More non plausible scenarios to get around the fact that evolution has been falsified many times.

Give me one example.

The fact that there are few examples of ape ancestors is also a fact.

And if you knew anything about evolution, you'd know why.

Maybe apes just poofed into existence.

No, that's what you guys believe, remember?

Then you had best go look up cladistics. Many of your researchers say that the Linnaean system is useless and are now using cladistics...which by the way is a creationist base.
Cladistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the terms of biological systematics, a clade is a single "branch" on the "tree of life", a monophyletic group.

Looks like you should take your own advice.

No..there is the ape kind that consists of many varieties of apes and there is mankind, totally unrelated. You can just ignore baraminology or you can try to expand your mind and understand it just like you expect creationists to understand evolutionary views before they are critisized..

Whenever you creationists ever standardize a theory and agree on the same creation story and which version and of which religion, and actually get some evidence for creation as opposed to horrible arguments against evolution, then it might be considered in the scientific arena. Until then, keep looking -- preferably in a typical high school text book for starters.

Great work!

Hey, it was dad that got it wrong, though why am I surprise that you'll at least admit this little piece of biology?

Yes, and evolutionists still have no clue how an egg laying physiology poofed into giving birth to live young. Do you think a placenta evolved and attached to an egg? Or do you think there was a half egg half live birth?

Neither. False dichotomy. Also an illustration of your misunderstanding of gradual change through natural selection.

When do you think the first navel appeared? What a nonsense this area of evoution truly is!

But a big invisible wizard in the sky poofing the universe together in a matter of days is completely sound and reasonable. Riiiight.

Again some evolutionists continue to show their total and unashamed ignorance of creationists sciences as well as their inability to learn.

I think creationists must be at least equally ashamed of their "science" as well... I've got a thread asking how creation science research is done, and nobody is able to answer it. So far, all I've been able to deduce is "read bible". Well, already did that a few times, now what? Where's the data? What experiments can be done? Where's the evidence?


OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology

I think your derogatory remarks are an expression of frustration.

After all, the best any evolutionists can provide is 100 years of debarkles, misclassifications, changed thinking, non plausible scenarios, debated unstable often contradictory research and the garbage bin of evolutionary delusions of once irrefuteable evidence for evolution that died.

Even if that were all true, it's still better than a couple thousand years of bigotry, genocide, stubborn thinking, baseless and irrational beliefs, self-righteousness, and the persecution and prosecution of knowledge, intelligence, logic, and rationality.

Let's not forget that evolutionists suggest that species were supposed to speciate. However if any 2 proposed species within the human line, or any line, were able to successfully mate after millions of years of separation...there goes the speciation principle.

]

Sure, if you didn't just describe speciation to somehow... refute... speciation? What?






I'm done for now. You're too long winded to waste much more time on. If any of my words upset you, just go back to evolutionfairytale.com to feel at home again. Thanks.

 

[Loudmouth]

yes I think some evolurionists are unable to read let alone expand their mind to understand another point of view. It sounds like evolutionists are well brainwashed.

More rhetoric from Astrid.

Junk DNA is not junk after all, vestigal organs have function and your scientits had to change the meaning of vestigal instead of falling flat on their faces with embarassment.

Junk DNA: nearly 2 million bases of junk DNA was removed from the mouse genome and they were unaffected. They were indistinguishable from mice who had the junk DNA. Your claims are refuted.

Vestigial organs: You once again ignore the fact that vestigial organs can have rudimentary functions and still be vestigial. The functions that the human vermiform appendix has are rudimentary. The primary function of the appendix and associated caecum is the digestion of cellulose. The human appendix does not serve that function. It is vestigial. Even more, the extensor coccygis muscle spans a fused joint in the tail bone. It is a muscle that can't move anything. It is vestigial.

Transitionals: Fossils are transitional if they contain a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. By your own admission, hominid fossils have a mixture of modern human features and basal ape features. They are transitional.

All three of your supposed potential falsifications of creationism have been observed. Creationism is falsified.

That there is data that can be interpreted as creationist support.

Then show us how creationism predicts these things and evolution does not. How did creationism predict that removal of 2 million bases of junk DNA would result in a mouse that was indistinguishable from normal mice? Where did creationism predict the existence of transitionals? Where did creationism predict that organs would lose their primary function while holding on to rudimentary functions?

You should know by now size is not he indicator of higher reasoning ability. Brains will enlarge as a response to things like sense of smell. It is about higher functioning.

You are the one using the size of H. erectus craniums to argue that they lack reasoning skill. Perhaps you want to rethink that one?

I think you are confusing baramins and discontinuity with your species definition.

I think you are confusing your "discontinuities" with real taxonomy. You think finding one difference excludes a species from a group of species, and you do so arbitrarily. The dalmation is a perfect example. According to your own criteria, all I need to do is show a morphological difference between chimps and gorillas to show that chimps are not apes.

and you still have no clue or firm conclusions as to how, why when and where!

We do have firm conclusions on the how, and it isn't magical poofing.

Using your argument, you would reject the theory of gravity because we have not accurately measured the orbit of every planet in our galaxy.

Your discontinuities are arbitrary and they tell us nothing about ancestry.

You mean the shared ERVs that were horizonatally transmitted due to cohabitation and endogenized where your researchers cannot tell other than by applying a predetermined view to the data.

Orthologous ERV's are not horizontally transferred. They are vertically transferred. How many times have you been told this, and you still get it wrong? Humans and chimps share over 200,000 ORTHOLOGOUS ERV's. Only a relative handful are non-orthologous, those that have been acquired by each lineage after they split from the common ancestor. This is really simple genetics, and you get it wrong every time.

OR the gob smacked look on researchers faces when they discovered ERVs can transfer horizonatally and hit the germ line and engogenize, OR are you talking about the yet again embarassing event of evolutionist purporting ERV's having no function and this is proof against creationsm, just like the JUNK dna debarkle, only to be recanted and embarassed...YET AGAIN! I guess you are used to it.

You mean the junk DNA debarkle where removal of 2 million base pairs of junk DNA made no difference to the mouse? That debarkle? Or the one where you failed to show that all 200,000 ERV's have function, all the while claiming that they do? Which one should we start with?

So basically ignorance is your only reply and that is just not good enough to substantiate the thread topic that I have very appropraitely refuted and falsified.

Ignorance of what? I have to educate you on simple biology at every turn. Do you need someone to explain the difference between orthologous and non-orthologous ERV's again, for like the 10th time?

 

[USincognito]

http://objectiveministries.org/creation/baraminogram.png

Wow. You're still citing Objective ministries parody material as support for your position?

Wow. Just wow...
Google

 

[JordanDaniel]

I havent read any of this, but Im going to simply say evolution is a lie.

If we evolved from apes, why in the world do they still exist. There it is, seek Christ.

 

[AV1611VET]

If we evolved from apes, why in the world do they still exist.

They hang around to see how we do.

If we do okay, they go extinct; if we don't do okay, they make something else.

It's called preservation of genus, or something like that.

 

[dad]

Same difference.

Thanks for admitting it. Next time, be careful, evos, before badmouthing God, creation, the bible or etc. Otherwise you too could be exposed as having no evidence to support such foaming rabid oral excretions.

 

[Phred]

Thanks for admitting it. Next time, be careful, evos, before badmouthing God, creation, the bible or etc. Otherwise you too could be exposed as having no evidence to support such foaming rabid oral excretions.

There is no evidence to suggest a god exists. Any god. The Bible is not history, it is not supported by evidence. It is stories. Stories men told each other based upon some real events, and mostly trying to make their deity look bigger and meaner than everyone else's deity.

My evidence is that YOU have no evidence. You believe what you believe because of where you live, who you associate with and how you were raised. If you were in Iran you'd be a Muslim. It's that simple.

I have no problem with you believing any old thing you wish to believe... but don't expect me to say you're rational. Don't expect my blessing. Don't expect me to let you teach it to my children. Religion has caused far more harm than good in this world. And your god?

Tell me... why doesn't God heal amputees? Why doesn't anyone ever grow a new limb? You know, a miracle that nobody can ever dispute. Why?

It's because God doesn't exist. And creationism is the worst expression of belief in God. It just makes people stupid because it leads nowhere.

 

[dad]

There is no evidence to suggest a god exists.

None to suggest He doesn't. So we can believe the carefully passed down records of real people. You have no evidence available to give reason not to.

Any god. The Bible is not history, it is not supported by evidence. It is stories. Stories men told each other based upon some real events, and mostly trying to make their deity look bigger and meaner than everyone else's deity.

Nothing in the past that matters is supported by the sort of idiotic 'evidence' science could deal in. So?

My evidence is that YOU have no evidence. You believe what you believe because of where you live, who you associate with and how you were raised. If you were in Iran you'd be a Muslim. It's that simple.

Peter and John and Paul, and Matthew and Mary, and Martha, and Luke, and many many others saw the risen Christ. You are in no position to question that.

I have no problem with you believing any old thing you wish to believe... but don't expect me to say you're rational. Don't expect my blessing. Don't expect me to let you teach it to my children. Religion has caused far more harm than good in this world. And your god?

Don't expect us to let you teach ours. Buster.

Tell me... why doesn't God heal amputees? Why doesn't anyone ever grow a new limb? You know, a miracle that nobody can ever dispute. Why?

He does. They do. That is kid stuff.


People who were lame all their lives got up and walked instantly. Have you any evidence all this creation of new tissue, and muscles and brain abilities and etc somehow excluded new limbs? Adam got all new limbs!

 

[mzungu]

“I am God, and there is none like Me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.” (Isa 46:9-10).

This is direct contradiction to:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them".

 

[mzungu]

I havent read any of this, but Im going to simply say evolution is a lie.

If we evolved from apes, why in the world do they still exist. There it is, seek Christ.

I have not read the Bible, but I'm going to simply say Christianity is a lie.

If modern dogs evolved from wolves and jackals then why are there still wolves and jackals.

 

[Psudopod]

I havent read any of this, but Im going to simply say evolution is a lie.

If we evolved from apes, why in the world do they still exist. There it is, seek Christ.

1 - Human are apes.

2 - If you exist why do you still have cousins?

3 - Christianity and evolution are not incompatible.

 

[mzungu]

If you exist why do you still have cousins?

And 2nd cousins and 3rd cousins and ............................

 

[mzungu]

Yo!
​

​

Wanna meet our cousins?
​

​

OOOPPPSSSS!!!!! I forgot that wolves and jackals don't exist since dogs evolved (whether they did so by man's intervention does not change the fact that they evolved).

 

[AV1611VET]

OOOPPPSSSS!!!!! I forgot that wolves and jackals don't exist since dogs evolved (whether they did so by man's intervention does not change the fact that they evolved).

I think that's his point.

The fact that these animals still exists is testimony, to him, that evolution is bogus.

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by mzungu

OOOPPPSSSS!!!!! I forgot that wolves and jackals don't exist since dogs evolved (whether they did so by man's intervention does not change the fact that they evolved).
​

I think that's his point.

The fact that these animals still exists is testimony, to him, that evolution is bogus.

I think it's more testimony that he doesn't understand evolution...

 

[mzungu]

I think that's his point.

The fact that these animals still exists is testimony, to him, that evolution is bogus.

Just like our cousin apes still exist so do wolves and jackals exist. What you fail to understand is that we have a COMMON ancestor. We did not come from Chimpanzees.

When one insists that "if we came from apes then how come apes exist?" Is akin to me saying that you came from your cousin and therefore how does your cousin still exists!

COMMON ANCESTOR means just that.

All the great apes are cousins; Some are 2nd cousins and some third but cousins to us!

No matter how you put it we are apes!