Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[Davian]

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

There is this website called 'YouTube' that may provide evidence to the contrary.

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Psudopod
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.

Okay, it's not just Astridhere who can't understand this simple point. Let me ask you the same question that she ignored: if dalmations have spots, and border collies do not have spots, does that mean dalmations are not dogs?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Is God a fantasy?

Any of these fit it's description?

1fan·ta·sy


Definition of FANTASY

1
obsolete : hallucination

2
: fancy; especially : the free play of creative imagination

3
: a creation of the imaginative faculty whether expressed or merely conceived: as a : a fanciful design or invention b : a chimerical or fantastic notion c : fantasia 1 d : imaginative fiction featuring especially strange settings and grotesque characters —called also fantasy fiction

4
: caprice

5
: the power or process of creating especially unrealistic or improbable mental images in response to psychological need <an object of fantasy>; also : a mental image or a series of mental images (as a daydream) so created <sexual fantasies>

6
: a coin usually not intended for circulation as currency and often issued by a dubious authority (as a government-in-exile)


.learners-link DIV.learners-link-content { PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 22px; PADDING-RIGHT: 5px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; PADDING-TOP: 0px}.learners-link DIV.learners-link-content A .word { TEXT-DECORATION: none}.learners-link DIV.learners-link-content A:hover .word { COLOR: #5358a9; TEXT-DECORATION: underline}#content .definition DIV.d .learners-link A { FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 13px; TEXT-DECORATION: none}#content .definition DIV.d .learners-link A:hover { FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 13px; TEXT-DECORATION: none}#content .definition DIV.d .learners-link A:link { FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 13px; TEXT-DECORATION: none}#content .definition DIV.d .learners-link A:visited { FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 13px; TEXT-DECORATION: none} See fantasy defined for English-language learners »

.wcentral-link DIV.wcentral-link-content { PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 5px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; PADDING-TOP: 0px}.wcentral-link DIV.wcentral-link-content A .word { TEXT-DECORATION: none}.wcentral-link DIV.wcentral-link-content A:hover .word { COLOR: #5358a9; TEXT-DECORATION: underline}#content .definition DIV.d .wcentral-link A { FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 13px; TEXT-DECORATION: none}#content .definition DIV.d .wcentral-link A:hover { FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 13px; TEXT-DECORATION: none}#content .definition DIV.d .wcentral-link A:link { FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 13px; TEXT-DECORATION: none}#content .definition DIV.d .wcentral-link A:visited { FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 13px; TEXT-DECORATION: none}See fantasy defined for kids »

 

[Loudmouth]

I requested an explanation of the mystery of the thumb.

There really isn't that much of a mystery. Thumb length is highly variable amongst hominids. Such things are part of biology. If you organized dogs by fur length would you produce the expected relatedness between dog breeds? Probably not. Focusing on one feature very rarely produces a quality cladogram.

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?

"Au. sediba has a small body, in comparison to H. erectus, for example, with long upper limbs, large joint surfaces and somewhat primitive limb structures. They were fully bipedal. "
Australopithecus sediba: A look at the physical evidence

So first off, Sebida is bipedal. As to Sebida's position in the human line, I have always stated that such estimates are impossible to make without DNA. All fossil species should be placed in cladograms where none are directly ancestral to the next.

With that said, Sebida is transitional. The transitional nature of a fossil is not determined by ancestry. It is determined by the mixture of features in the fossil. Sebida has a mixture of features from earlier Australopithecines and later hominids like H. erectus. This makes it transitional.

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.

No one is challenging the transitional nature of H. erectus. The only disagreements is where to put H. erectus with respect to our lineage and other earlier Homo species such as H. ergaster and H. habilis. None of these disagreements are over the transitional nature of H. erectus.

No actually, apes have similarities to mankind today. Evolutionsists just pick and choose the similarities as a straw grab.

So you try and improve on the situation by focusing on thumbs and thumbs only. Wow, good job.

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.

Last I checked, 880 is between other apes and modern humans. 880 is outside the range of other apes by your own admission. Also, when adjusted for body weight (the correct measurement to make) Turkana boy is much closer to modern humans than gorillas. So yes, H. erectus is intermediate.

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.

How does an 8 year age range estimate for Turkana Boy make it not transitional?

Possibly, likely and maybe is NOT science. Any non pluasible scenario does not give a theory merit.

Yes, it is. These are all possibilities at the moment. Unlike religion, science does not take dogmatic positions.

Every variety of ape is going to share some similarities.

Why is that? How does creationism explain this? Why should humans share any characteristics with apes at all, much less the majority of their DNA? Why should humans share 200,000 orthologous ERV's with chimps? Why would God need to reuse a single design?

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.

You have already admitted that these fossils have a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. If that isn't transitional, then what is? And why don't we find any fossils with a mixture of derived ape and canid features?

No the thread does not ask for a theory of everything.

You stated that the evidence supported magical poofing. Either support this claim or withdraw the assertion.

What I have done is provide an interpretation of data as it aligns with my creationist view.

Where? How does any of this align with magical poofing?

Data is data. It is open to interpretation, Evolutionist interpretations of the evidence/data are not the only interpretations.

Where did you demonstrate that magical poofing is the correct interpretation?

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.

I will fully agree that creationism is unfalsifiable.

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.

What creationist interpretation? That if evolution is true then every human ancestor going back to the first life needs a human sized brain? That one? To call it laughable would be a complement.

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.

You have already stated that no fossil can ever be considered intermediate. You do not have an interpretation. You have religious dogma.

Also, you have yet to show that a modern human left those prints.

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.

Yeah, because evolution never mentioned that birds evolved after fish . . . oh wait, it did.

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.

Again, how do you determine the entire morphology of a species from footprints? You complain about scientists reconstructing a skull from a skull cap, and yet here you are constructing an entire bird from footprints. Perhaps you should take your own advice?

Fully terrestrial tetrapod footprints dated to 395mya just after the devonian blows tiktaalik, your famous sea/land intermediate irrefuteable evidence for evolution, into oblivion.

Tiktaalik is still transitional. Do I need to talk about how transitionals are not ancestors once again?

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.

Tiktaalik is transitional, so yes, creationism is falsified.

There are plenty more with helium dating . . .

Helium dating refuted here:

RATE's Ratty Results: Helium in Zircons

In fact, this creationist zircon experiment fully demonstrates just how dishonest creationists are. They doctored graphs from other papers to get the results they wanted.

However this thread does not hypocritically request a creationist theory of everything as evolutionists are also unable to provide same.

I have offered the evolutionary theory. If we share a common ancestor with other apes then we should find fossils with a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. That is exactly what we see. The theory also states that we should NOT see fossils with a mixture of modern ape features and modern canid features, and we don't. For creationism, it doesn't matter what features the fossil has because creationism makes no predictions and will never accept a fossil as being intermediate no matter what features it has.

 

[SkyWriting]

Okay, it's not just Astridhere who can't understand this simple point. Let me ask you the same question that she ignored: if dalmations have spots, and border collies do not have spots, does that mean dalmations are not dogs?

Spots are different than the ability to reason or to give up ones life for another.
A singular unique ability in the Cosmos that space aliens don't possess.

Oh and humans write laws. Laws that state that humans are not legally animals.

 

[rikerjoe]

Spots are different than the ability to reason or to give up ones life for another.
A singular unique ability in the Cosmos that space aliens don't possess.

An ability not unique to humans though. And by all means, please prove that it is unique in Cosmos...

Oh and humans write laws. Laws that state that humans are not legally animals.

The ability to write it down does not make it reality....

 

[Davian]

Spots are different than the ability to reason or to give up ones life for another. A singular unique ability in the Cosmos that space aliens don't possess.

poe.

Actually, that would be two abilities, not singular. And I am sure there are aliens out there somewhere that would take exception to that comment.

Oh and humans write laws. Laws that state that humans are not legally animals.

Humans also write laws to classify tomatoes as vegetables. What's your point?

 

[mzungu]

[/color]

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

Since you are so informed then pray tell me which of the two photos is of human sperm trying to fuse with the egg and which is of a SEA URCHIN?

Since one gives rise to a human and the other gives rise to a sea urchin then just by looking at the end product you cannot see the similarities. After all a sea urchin hardly looks anything like a human. But! look under the microscope and lo and behold they are so similar that one can hardly tell the difference.

 

[Psudopod]

Spots are different than the ability to reason or to give up ones life for another.

Why are spots different to the ability to reason in this context? And there are plenty of animals that give up their lives for another.

A singular unique ability in the Cosmos that space aliens don't possess.

Citation definitely needed on this one!

Oh and humans write laws. Laws that state that humans are not legally animals.

We're not talking legally though, are we? We're talking biologically. Biologically, what part of the criteria for animal do humans not meet?

 

[MoonLancer]

Spots are different than the ability to reason

I have seen animals reason. It seems like we are the only ones becuse we are just so very good at it. If you have not seen an animal reason I suggest you do more observation.

or to give up ones life for another.

there is video of a dog trying to save another dog after it was hit by a car on the highway. It could have been killed. Dogs show bravery and courage and some would give their lives to save humans. ;/

A singular unique ability in the Cosmos that space aliens don't possess.

wrong

Oh and humans write laws. Laws that state that humans are not legally animals.

whats frightening is you think this is a good argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have seen animals reason.

As far as I know, animals don't experience cognitive dissonance.

 

[No Time]

whats frightening is you think this is a good argument.

Creationism is not just frightening it's mind blowing and child threatening, not to mention brain damaging.

 

[Greg1234]

Creationism is not just frightening it's mind blowing and child threatening, not to mention brain damaging.

No that's random mutations. The fruit flies reverted back to the wild type though.

 

[Nostromo]

No that's random mutations. The fruit flies reverted back to the wild type though.

Which is what you'd expect if the ToE was correct.

 

[mzungu]

No that's random mutations. The fruit flies reverted back to the wild type though.

By Jove I think he's got it! We may yet make you accept ToE since you have just described a fact of ToE!

 

[Doveaman]

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

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

It&#8217;s prophetic.

&#8220;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.&#8221; (Isa 46:9-10).

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?

The Bible doesn&#8217;t think that. That&#8217;s your flawed interpretation working overtime.

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.

Yes, it is:

&#8220;The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground...From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth&#8221; (Gen 2:7,Acts 17:26).

That &#8220;one man&#8221; is &#8220;Hominid Adam&#8221;.

How do you determine if an interpretation is flawed?

When it contradicts the Bible.

&#8220;From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth&#8221; (Acts 17:26).

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

The only method I reject is your myopic method.

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

So you have evidence that supports the theory and you have evidence that does not support the theory.

When it comes to evidence you are full of it.

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

I don&#8217;t cling to a scientific theory as if it&#8217;s a religion. I already have a religion. My acceptance of any scientific theory is tentative.

Yes, because you will never have all of the evidence.

No kidding.

No single theory in science is proven.

Tell me about it.

They are all tentative,

You got that right.

and they are all imperfect in one way or another.

All the more reason to doubt them.

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.

Your bad conclusions about evolution are blatantly obvious even if scientists don't admit it.

At least we have evidence.

Call it what you want.

I call it a fallible interpretation of observations made to fit an imperfect idea that can never be proven and should always be held with uncertainty.

That's one better than having faith.

Only if you don&#8217;t understand faith as the Bible describes it.

Faith, as the Bible describes it, is certain. It is not tentative.

&#8220;Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.&#8221; (Heb 11:1).

A tentative scientific theory has nothing on the certainty of biblical faith.

What happens when a faith based belief is shown to be wrong through new evidence?

A faith based belief cannot be wrong. There is no evidence against it. If the belief is wrong then it is not faith based. A faith based belief, as the Bible describes it, is certain.

&#8220;Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.&#8221; (Heb 11:1).

From the appearances of this forum, you ignore the evidence and keep on believing false beliefs.

What I ignore is your fallible interpretation of observations made to fit an imperfect idea that can never be proven and should always be held with uncertainty.

The only false beliefs here are your flawed interpretations of observations.

Another creationist blinded by his ego.

Another evolutionist blinded by his myopia.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

As far as I know, animals don't experience cognitive dissonance.

Nor do they believe in EA either.

 

[Doveaman]

Okay, it's not just Astridhere who can't understand this simple point. Let me ask you the same question that she ignored: if dalmations have spots, and border collies do not have spots, does that mean dalmations are not dogs?

What makes a man a human is different from what makes a chimp an ape.

It is our spirit that makes us human and not just our physical body.

The human spirit is not a product of evolution; it is the product of the Almighty.

&#8220;There is a spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding...For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?&#8221; (Job 32:8, 1 Cor 2:11).

If evolution theory cannot account for the human spirit then evolution theory does not understand what it means to be human.

 

[Doveaman]

Based on what evidence?

Based on evidence that is certain and saves the guilty instead of scientific evidence that is uncertain and condemns the innocent.

 

[sandwiches]

Based on evidence that is certain and saves the guilty instead of scientific evidence that is uncertain and condemns the innocent.

Which is what evidence, exactly?