Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[USincognito]

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

Your fantasies are as bizarre as they are uninteresting and your continued inablity to master the quote function only reflects your inability to recognize your own errors and own up to them.

Perhaps when you finally admit you were repeatedly, despite repeated corrections, posting a photo of a modern human skeleton and calling it Lucy or repeadly, despite repeated corrections posting a photo of Salem and calling her Lucy, I can go back to taking your needlessly verbose and self-congratulatory posts semi-seriously.

 

[Loudmouth]

Catastrophism vs. Uniformitarianism

No modern geologist uses Lyell's form of Uniformitarianism. This is the form of Uniformitarianism that modern geologists use:

"the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe."
Uniformitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientists observe how geologic layers are laid down catastrophically in the modern world, and then look for those indications in older strata. They also look at modern strata that are being laid down slowly, and look for those indications in older strata. Can you please explain to us why this is not scientific?

 

[Loudmouth]

OK, That's enough.

The term IGNORANT means that someone doesn't know anything about a topic.

And this is exactly what you have demonstrated with respect to evolution and science in general. You actually think that, according to evolution, that modern species should evolve into other modern species. This is clearly wrong. Only someone ignorant of what the theory states would make such a mistake.

If someone has studied the topic in college then they are no longer ignorant.

If someone had studied the topic and actually LEARNED WHAT THE THEORY STATES then they wouldn't be making the mistakes you are. My Intro to Zoology course required me to create cladograms. Just from that simple knowledge I know that modern species do not evolve into other modern species, and that new species are still a part of the same taxonomic group as their ancestors.

This isn't about a disagreement. This is about you misrepresenting what the theory of evolution states.

 

[Loudmouth]

he findings are fully terrestrial tetrapods 10 million years older than the supposed intermediate tiktaalik, many with no tail marks.

Why is this a problem? You do understand the difference between intermediate and direct ancestor, do you not?

"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."
--Charles Darwin

Darwin refuted your argument 150 years ago.

What is bird like?

Could it be like "bird hipped" dinosaurs?

Ornithischian Dinosaurs

Your researchers have difficulty telling the difference between a human and ape bone today.

Yes, just like they have a problem telling the difference between a chihuahua and a dog.

Humans are apes just like chihuahuas are dogs.

The point being as of 2mya the only specimen of feet you have shows a tree climber.

The hips do not. Australipithecines had hips consistent with bipedalism.

Where does tiktaalik sit in your nested mess now that he is cast aside as an intermediate.

It sits right here:

The footprints show fully human adult, full sized footprints with a human gait even more human than some flat footed humans now may leave.

How do you determine the morphology of the entire organism from footprints? How do you measure cranium size from footprints?

I have presented data that supports creation.

All you have presented in this thread is incredulity and ridicule. That is not data.

What data have you presented which supports the claim that species were magically poofed into being by a supernatural deity?

Even worse, you still can not tell us what features a real transitional would have. All you can do is point to difference between modern humans and fossil species as if that rules out the possibility of a shared ancestor.

 

[Split Rock]

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

What a sad way to spend your day.

I wonder if you were looking in the mirror when you wrote this statement. You have not answered any of my questions and you have still not provided any evidence for creationism. What a sad way to spend your day, Indeed.

 

[Philothei]

How can creationism have evidence in a scientific way of thinking? That is impossible... The same impossibiltity to verify God. Faith in the creator who creates everything ex nihilo. I see no reason to compare apples to oranges here. And please let's keep the convo polite. No need for attacking others whoever they might be.

 

[Split Rock]

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

Where are the fossils of these fully terrestrial tetrapods? All you have is a some tracks that may or may not back up your claim. How this supports the biblical account, even if they are what they seem is beyond me. Terrestrial created kinds after fish? Don't you mean after all sea creatures? Including whales, seals, sea lions, etc.? Where are those in the fossil record?

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

I will ask you again: Give us an example of something that would not fit in well with your "creationist thinking."

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

Sure, picking and chosing a couple of isolated anomolies is easily done. Then concluding that it supporrts your position because it seems to not support the other is even easier! Creation "science" at its best!

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

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

Wow, you really are good at Psychological Projection, aren't you? This is exactly what you are doing here! "Here's this one trackway that seems to conflict with tetrapod evolution. I win now!" You were talking about hypocricy, weren't you? Thanks for providing an example for us all.

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

You have provided no data to support creation at all, and the only straw grabbing (track grabbing?) is being carried out by you.

 

[Astridhere]

Your fantasies are as bizarre as they are uninteresting and your continued inablity to master the quote function only reflects your inability to recognize your own errors and own up to them.

Perhaps when you finally admit you were repeatedly, despite repeated corrections, posting a photo of a modern human skeleton and calling it Lucy or repeadly, despite repeated corrections posting a photo of Salem and calling her Lucy, I can go back to taking your needlessly verbose and self-congratulatory posts semi-seriously.

You are obviously unable to stay on topic. Considering the mistakes made by your researchers repeatedly, I welcome your harping on the past.

Indeed I did forget at the time that Lucy's skull is no more than a few fragments pasted together. The point that Salem, at 3yo, and an adult female Bornean orangutan looks more like a human than any of your erectus skulls is still a fact. The other fact is your very learned researchers have classified apes as human many times only to recant. eg..Lucy, Ardi, Darwinius(Ida), Little foot, homo florensiensis, even homo erectus is challenged by evolutionary researchers as our direct human ancestor.

'Missing link' fossil was not human ancestor as claimed, anthropologists say
Ancient Apelike Fossil Not Human Ancestor, Study Finds
'Hobbit' Skull Study Finds Hobbit Is Not Human
Human ancestor older than previously thought; Finding offers new insights into evolution

The point is mute, as Lucy is not considered our direct ancestor anymore and had been railroaded to a cousin....as usual.

So your inability to refute my evidence/data that supports creation and refutes the thread topic is obviously beyond you.

 

[Astridhere]

Where are the fossils of these fully terrestrial tetrapods? All you have is a some tracks that may or may not back up your claim. How this supports the biblical account, even if they are what they seem is beyond me. Terrestrial created kinds after fish? Don't you mean after all sea creatures? Including whales, seals, sea lions, etc.? Where are those in the fossil record?
Here we go..I knew it..the answer every question better than we can game. You lot still think a whale is a terapod for goodness sakes!.. The onus is on you to prove this nonsense, not me. For a start Indohyus is just a mouse deer alive and well today. It dives and this is why it has aquatic features, not because it is on its way to becoming a whale. Ambulocetus natans behaviour is desribed as being like a crocodile. It's skeleton also looks like a variety of crocodile or primitive crocodile. I am not talking about the misrepresented sketch these desperados made up. I am taking about the actual fossil evidence. The most parsinomous explanation is for natans to be a crocodile, not a mythical intermediate.

Your researchers offer misrepresentations as evidence.

BBC - Earth News - Aquatic deer and ancient whales

It is like coelecanth the famous walking fish you lot used to shove up creationists. Coelecanth was found alive and well today and isn't walking anywhere and absolutely does not walk along the ocean floor. If this creature had of gone extinct you lot would still be tooting your horn about having an irrefuteable example of transition to land, which is actually no more scientific than garble and woffle just like tiktaalik.

I will ask you again: Give us an example of something that would not fit in well with your "creationist thinking."
Junk DNA would not fit well. However creationists have always asserted there is not junk DNA and this continues to be validated with non coding DNA proving to have vital function. Vestigal organs wouldn't either and just like junk DNA these so called vestigal organs are also being found to have vital functions.

Now you tell me what doesn't fit with evolution. eg a 395myo fully terrestrial tetrapod.

Sure, picking and chosing a couple of isolated anomolies is easily done. Then concluding that it supporrts your position because it seems to not support the other is even easier! Creation "science" at its best!
Listen Pal, I am not going to debate a total model for creation. If I could be bothered to do that I would write a book and make money on it, not wate my time debating you.

Nor am I disproving evolution. I have simply demonstrated a simple refute to the thread. You lot absolutley cannot take it in. You will woffle on with all asides and request a better standard of proof than you yourself can supply.


The thread suggests creation is not based on data. I have shown some examples of how data does align with creation. If you feel overwhelmed or threatened by it, that is your problem. You need to learn to deal with it and your 100 years of mistakes.

Wow, you really are good at Psychological Projection, aren't you? This is exactly what you are doing here! "Here's this one trackway that seems to conflict with tetrapod evolution. I win now!" You were talking about hypocricy, weren't you? Thanks for providing an example for us all.
Actually I am a psych..that's my bread and butter. I deal with nuts all day so I can easily recognise the desperate.



You have provided no data to support creation at all, and the only straw grabbing (track grabbing?) is being carried out by you.

Oh so now you are ignoring your scientific data spoken to by many well credentialed evolutionary researchers, not just one.

Aligning data with an assumption is apparently what you call science. You know longer know what science is, it appears.

Take a look this is science.....

"From the temporal distribution pattern we recognize five distinct tetrapod-footprint-based biochrons likened to the known land-vertebrate faunachrons (LVFs) of the tetrapod body fossil record: 1. Dicynodont tracks (Lootsbergian=Induan age); 2. Protochirotherium (Synaptichnium), Rhynchosauroides, Procolophonichnium (Nonesian=Induan–Olenekian age); 3. Chirotherium barthii, C. sickleri, Isochirotherium, Synaptichnium (‘Brachychirotherium&#8217, Rotodactylus, Rhynchosauroides, Procolophonichnium, dicynodont tracks, Capitosauroides (Nonesian–Perovkan=Olenekian–early Anisian); 4. Atreipus–Grallator (‘Coelurosaurichnus&#8217, Synaptichnium (‘Brachychirotherium&#8217, Isochirotherium, Sphingopus, Parachirotherium, Rhynchosauroides, Procolophonichnium (Perovkan–Berdyankian=Late Anisian–Ladinian); 5. Brachychirotherium, Atreipus–Grallator, Grallator, Eubrontes, Apatopus, Rhynchosauroides, dicynodont tracks (Otischalkian–Apachean=Carnian–Rhaetian). "
Tetrapod footprints - their use in biostratigraphy and biochronology of the Triassic

What is straw grabbing is your inability to accept or perhaps understand the research provided.

What amazes me constantly about some of you evolutionists is that your head is so full of woffle that you are unable to discern what the heck evidence is anymore.

I have put up the link that shows the pictures of some footprints. If you had one research bone in your body you could look them up again for your self. But no... playing ignorant and constantly demanding the same evidence to be reposted is surely a reflection of your own lack of knowledge of the field of science you defend.

There are some in this link
Science Literature - Lobbing a grenade into the Tetrapod Evolution picture

There are some in this link demonstrating the publishing in Nature magazine in 2010. Get with the program. You should know this stuff or at least have some vague knowledge about it. Constant demands for reposts demonstrate you are totally ignorant of the information. This link shows forward facing footprint of a fully terrestrial tetrapod and looks similar to a black bear paw print..
Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

You lot can wiggle and squirm as much as you like. Creationists are able to align data with creation. I have given you some examples....deal with it.

Your constant empty harping that creationists have no data behind their claims is nothing more than clear and undeniable ignorance.

If you feel threatened..get over it.

 

[Astridhere]

How can creationism have evidence in a scientific way of thinking? That is impossible... The same impossibiltity to verify God. Faith in the creator who creates everything ex nihilo. I see no reason to compare apples to oranges here. And please let's keep the convo polite. No need for attacking others whoever they might be.

It is a shame you have lost the love you had at first and have decided to throw your hat behind the reasonings of mankind..and desperate ones at that.

I will attack those that attack me.

Considering all the bible quotes you have on your signature it appears you have no trouble believing in the unproven.

 

[AV1611VET]

... and you have still not provided any evidence for creationism.

-- What's wrong with that?

 

[Astridhere]

Why is this a problem? You do understand the difference between intermediate and direct ancestor, do you not?
Listen up.this thread asks for a creationist to supply data that supports a creative view. I have done just that.
"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."
--Charles Darwin
Oh bla bla. None of this carry on negates the fact that the data I provided supports my view
Darwin refuted your argument 150 years ago.

Darwin didn't even know what HGT and epigentic inheritance is both being non vertical forms of information transmission. If you are still defending Darwin you are obviously not worth debating.

Could it be like "bird hipped" dinosaurs?

Ornithischian Dinosaurs



Yes, just like they have a problem telling the difference between a chihuahua and a dog.

Humans are apes just like chihuahuas are dogs.



The hips do not. Australipithecines had hips consistent with bipedalism.

None of this woffle detracts from the fact that the evidence I provided supports and aligns well with creation. You simply cannot bear it as evolutionists would loose one of their favourite passtimes...dumping on creationists.

It sits right here:

This graph does not show nested hierarchies my dear. Do you even know what they are? Indeed 395myo tetrapod footprints has put your vertebra phylogeny out of whack...and your researchers agree. Deal with it!
How do you determine the morphology of the entire organism from footprints? How do you measure cranium size from footprints?
That is no problem for evolutionists. Your researchers can make a whole species and life story from a chard of bone.

So the Laetoli footprints put human feet on an ape afarensis and you'll accept that, but you are going to ignore those footprints that do not suit you. How typical!

Your researchers have shown they have no idea who is who in the zoo, and that is why specimens float in and out of the human line like Sunday dinners.

You also have few chimp ancestors...Guess why? They are all tossed in the human line with reckless abandon.

All you have presented in this thread is incredulity and ridicule. That is not data.
I have presented published research into the finding of fully terrestrial tetrapod footprints dated to 395mya. That is supportive of creatures being found fully formed with terrestrial traits as one would expect if created. The ridicule is in response to your inability to discern what data and evidence actually looks like and the difference between data and hypothesis.
What data have you presented which supports the claim that species were magically poofed into being by a supernatural deity?
Poofing into existence is akin to your abiogenesis, which remains in fairy land also. Mankinds inability to understand the knowledge that a God and a deity has is no solid basis to suggest the coalescence and formation of an animate being is impossible. It is beleivers that acknowledge the power of God and then deny it in favour of evolution that are the ones in need, I feel.
Even worse, you still can not tell us what features a real transitional would have. All you can do is point to difference between modern humans and fossil species as if that rules out the possibility of a shared ancestor. Can you explain what features Nephalim, would have so that you can falsify the claim that nephalim ever existed? This is a nonsense that you continue to harp over. Fancy expecting a creationist to describe a mythical creature as a basis to falsify it. What nonsense.

The point being I have used data and done what your researchers do with it, which is to put a hypothesis or interpretation of the data up.

I do not need to woffle on as to why there are no tail marks, or what kind of fish these creatures 'evolved from. I can take the data as it stands.

You lot now need to find another common ancestor as tiktaalik is out.

I do not need to find anything as the data aligns with a creationist paradigm well as it stands. That is it and it is simple.

You can play whatever games you want and demand whatever answers you want and still none of those ploys will take away from the fact that I have supplied data that aligns with a creationist stance and answered the thread topic. If you want a book about it..go buy one.

 

[Loudmouth]

Listen up.this thread asks for a creationist to supply data that supports a creative view. I have done just that

Where? What data have you shown that supports the claim that species were magically poofed into being?

Oh bla bla. None of this carry on negates the fact that the data I provided supports my view

How does it support your view? How does Tiktaalik being ten millions years older than tetrapod footprints demonstrate that life was magically poofed into being by a supernatural deity? Please explain.

Darwin didn't even know what HGT and epigentic inheritance is both being non vertical forms of information transmission. If you are still defending Darwin you are obviously not worth debating.

Darwin did not deal with the evolution of species that participate in HGT either. He stuck to mostly metazoans which do not participate in HGT and do fall into a nested hierarchy.

The point being I have used data and done what your researchers do with it, which is to put a hypothesis or interpretation of the data up.

So what is the null hypothesis? What are the conditions under which your hypothesis is false? Like I have asked before, what features must a fossil have in order for it to be transitional?

None of this woffle detracts from the fact that the evidence I provided supports and aligns well with creation.

How does it support creationism? Please explain? How does a mixture of modern human and ape features in H. erectus support creationism? How does the observed nested hierarchy support creationism? Please explain.

This graph does not show nested hierarchies my dear.

I show you a graph with groups nested within groups and you claim it is not a nested hierarchy. Your religion is blinding you.

You asked me where Tiktaalik fits into the nested hierarchy. I showed you. Your response? Firmly shut your eyes. You are a perfect example of just how close minded creationists really are.

I do not need to woffle on as to why there are no tail marks, or what kind of fish these creatures 'evolved from. I can take the data as it stands.

Of course not. You accept a dogmatic religious philosophy. There is no waffling when you never have to explain the evidence and assume you are never wrong. Scientists have to deal with the scientific method which requires you to change your theory to fit the evidence. That is why theories change, and why creationism does not.

You lot now need to find another common ancestor as tiktaalik is out.

There is no way to determine if any fossil is ancestral to another. All that can be done is compare morphology, and when this is done metazoans fall into a nested hierarchy as evolution predicts and creationism can not explain.

I do not need to find anything as the data aligns with a creationist paradigm well as it stands. That is it and it is simple.

What date wouldn't line up with magical poofing?

You can play whatever games you want and demand whatever answers you want and still none of those ploys will take away from the fact that I have supplied data that aligns with a creationist stance and answered the thread topic. If you want a book about it..go buy one.

What data would not align with a creationist stand? What mixture of features in a fossil would be inconsistent with creationism, and why?

 

[Loudmouth]

It is a shame you have lost the love you had at first and have decided to throw your hat behind the reasonings of mankind..and desperate ones at that.

Last I checked, the Bible was written by men.

 

[cubinity]

Last I checked, the Bible was written by men.

That's an argument that will go in circles. That one touches at what I have found to be the core doctrine of Christianity. It almost doesn't seem to matter whether or not you believe Jesus was actually God or not anymore (the Trinity is considered the core doctrine of the Christian faith), but if you don't believe the Bible was written by God, you're not a part of our club. I think that makes it the core doctrine. Am I wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

Last I checked, the Bible was written by men.

Did you happen to notice if they were working in the capacity of a secretary or not?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's an argument that will go in circles.

It takes two to make that kind of a circle, doesn't it?

 

[Loudmouth]

The point that Salem, at 3yo, and an adult female Bornean orangutan looks more like a human than any of your erectus skulls is still a fact.

That would be a lie.

Orangutan female

H. erectus

H. sapiens

How anyone can tell the whoppers you do with a straight face is beyond me.

Look at the cranium size, the prognathus, canines, etc. H. erectus is much, much, much more like modern humans than orangutans.

 

[Loudmouth]

Did you happen to notice if they were working in the capacity of a secretary or not?

That would require the reasoning of man, something that Astridhere rejects.

 

[AV1611VET]

H. erectus

We say Homo erectuses were men & women who died of strange diseases.