Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[Delphiki]

The Bible doesn’t think that. That’s your flawed interpretation working overtime.

A Christian that doesn't read the bible...even the most basic parts... Imagine that.

Genesis 1:6,7
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.


Genesis 1:14-16
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.


Please, feel free to show me your mental gymnastics of how this doesn't actually say what it plainly says. I'd say it's pretty darn specific.

 

[dad]

There is no difference. You, I, Goodall's husband, and everyone are all technically apes. The facts don't care whether you take offense to it or not, they are just facts.

So if someone married an ape that is OK? Or are you biased of some of what you call apes?

 

[dad]

You, me and every other human on this planet are animals and our "Kind" is the Ape "Kind", don't like that fact?
well guess whose problem that is?

Yours. You are wrong. I'll take God's opinion, thanks. Evo categorization attempts are sick religion.

 

[sandwiches]

Yours. You are wrong. I'll take God's opinion, thanks. Evo categorization attempts are sick religion.

You mean you'll take what you think is God's opinion.

 

[dad]

You mean you'll take what you think is God's opinion.

No. I'll take what you think I think is God's opinion, as we discussed, you do not and cannot know! Checkmate.

 

[Delphiki]

So if someone married an ape that is OK?

Depends on what kind of ape. If it's a human marrying another human, then fine, they are both the same kind of ape.

Otherwise, you're marrying an animal that can't speak for itself, which is wrong.

If there was another species of ape that could coherently reason and speak its mind and was able to consent to marriage (in other words, as intelligent as any human being), then I actually wouldn't have a problem with it.

Or are you biased of some of what you call apes?

Why are the most simple of concepts completely lost on you?

Did you miss the part where I said we're all apes? We're just one species of ape.

 

[dad]

Depends on what kind of ape. If it's a human marrying another human, then fine, they are both the same kind of ape.

So same sex apes of the same 'kind' are fine with evos. Got it. But as long as it is illegal, they are not to marry other ape kinds. OK. Just trying to see the evo moral system clearly here..

Otherwise, you're marrying an animal that can't speak for itself, which is wrong.

So if a person is a mute, it is wrong, cause they can't speak. Got it.

If there was another species of ape that could coherently reason and speak its mind and was able to consent to marriage (in other words, as intelligent as any human being), then I actually wouldn't have a problem with it.

Yech.

Why are the most simple of concepts completely lost on you?

Because when one simply waves all similar looking creatures into a contrived circle they label as apes, it changes nothing in reality. Only in their minds.

Did you miss the part where I said we're all apes? We're just one species of ape.

No. We are all men, and a kind of our own. Any godless attempts to draw a circle big enough for us and rats and monkeys or whatever, is a satanic circle of no real meaning or bearing on actual fact. I am not an ape. Really.

 

[sandwiches]

I'll take what you think I think is God's opinion[.]

Same difference.

 

[Psudopod]

[/CENTER]an;58599094]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.

“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?” (Job 32:8, 1 Cor 2:11).

So humans are not apes because they have a spirit. So by that logic dalmations are not digs because they have spots.

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

Might want to provide some evidence for it before you try and force us to explain it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Based on evidence that is certain

Such as?

instead of scientific evidence that is uncertain and condemns the innocent.

People are freed from prison on the strength of scientific evidence, or were you unaware of that?

 

[Loudmouth]

At least you confirmed your ignorance of vertebrate anatomy.

It’s prophetic.

It's wrong.

The Bible doesn’t think that. That’s your flawed interpretation working overtime.

Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.[7]
So please explain where these waters above the firmament are.

When it contradicts the Bible.

Religious dogma confirmed.

The only method I reject is your myopic method.

You aren't even original. This is getting worse by the minute.

You use the scientific method every day of your life. You depend on medications developed through the scientific method. Every day you put your life on the line based on scientific knowledge derived from the scientific method. You don't reject it by any means, you only dislike reality.

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.

And now you fall back to dismissals. How mature. I guess that is all you have left when you can't deal with the evidence.

I don’t cling to a scientific theory as if it’s a religion.

Neither do I.

No kidding.
Tell me about it.
You got that right.
All the more reason to doubt them.

Why does tentativity bother you so much?

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

Then it should not be difficult for you to disprove them. Why haven't you done so?

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.

We will never have absolute knowledge of everything, and we are fallible beings. Science is the best we can ever do. Why do you reject it? Why do you think blind faith is better than admitting our faults?

Only if you don’t understand faith as the Bible describes it.

I understand it just fine. Your approach to reality does a great job of demonstrating the shortcomings of faith. Even when evidence demonstrates that you are wrong you refuse to admit it. Faith is even worse than science.

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

How does believing that something is true actually make it true? If I had faith that the moon was made of cheese would it suddenly turn into cheese?

If science is myopic then faith is blind.

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.

But humans are infallible when writing and reading the Bible? Yeah, right.

 

[Delphiki]

So same sex apes of the same 'kind' are fine with evos. Got it. But as long as it is illegal, they are not to marry other ape kinds. OK. Just trying to see the evo moral system clearly here.

Who even mentioned same sex? I'm not even talking about the law either. I'm saying that as long as both or all parties in the marriage are capable of consenting to marriage and are of adequate maturity, then I personally have no problem with it.

The Theory of Evolution is also not a tool for outlining morality.

So if a person is a mute, it is wrong, cause they can't speak. Got it.

Of course it's NOT wrong. Mutes can still give consent and understand the concept of marriage just like any human being. Are you suggesting mutes are merely unintelligent animals?

Yech.

So you'd be disgusted at the though of people marrying, say, extraterrestrials? Watching Star Trek must be a real stomach churner for you.

The fact is, no such "other intelligent ape" has ever been found alive today, nor do I think it would ever be... but if one existed today, I wouldn't care if humans married them. In fact, there's evidence that homo sapiens frequently mated with neanderthal... which is a perfect example of another intelligent species of ape. They've just all gone extinct.

Here's something that might gross you (and I mean specifically, you) out: If you have any gingers in your family (red hair, freckles), then there's a good chance you have some neanderthal genes in your family. *gasp*

Yep, your ancestors were once promiscuous enough to do the horizontal mambo with other intelligent, consenting apes. Of course, back then, few humans cared about consent. But because of this outbreeding, the human species may have avoided extinction itself by introducing heterosis (aka hybrid vigor) during a period of low population.

Because when one simply waves all similar looking creatures into a contrived circle they label as apes, it changes nothing in reality. Only in their minds.

The fact that we're apes is hardly contrived. It's a genetic, physiological, and morphological fact.

It's also a means of cataloging things on the tree of life, which is a lot more useful than just arbitrarily assign things to undefined "kinds" and leaving it at that.

No. We are all men, and a kind of our own.

Yes, humans are a separate species of ape from the other apes on earth. So, if by "kind" you mean "species" you are correct. We are a different "kind" of ape.

Also, only about half of us are men. The other half are women.

Any godless attempts to draw a circle big enough for us and rats and monkeys or whatever, is a satanic circle of no real meaning or bearing on actual fact.

Rats, monkeys, and humans are all mammals. This has nothing to do with the Christian belief in Satan. Again, it's a genetic, physiological, and morphological fact.

Any attempt to draw a circle around the same "kind" of creatures as used by creationists have been fruitless altogether. This is partly why we don't use a vague and baseless classification such as "kind" unless it's used as an adjective to describe a more specific level of classification "same kind of genus" or "different kind of species".

I am not an ape. Really.

You're still making the mistake that "ape" only covers one specific species, I think. I tell you what... find me a picture of an "ape" and post it here. This "ape" has to be the only thing that could possibly be considered an ape. I bet i could find numerous other examples of apes besides human and besides the "ape" that you find.

 

[Astridhere]

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?

Astrid here hasn't got time to waste on pointless rhetoric. It is you that do not understand further straining of points is not going to detract from the fact that creationists have data that supports their paradigms, nor the fact that evolutionists appear to be threatened as demonstrated by simply not concedeeding the point but rather hopping onto every aside to avoid it.

If you or others do not know that dogs without spots are still dogs then I guess it is back to bio101 for for some.

I'll assit by informing you, yes they are. Now that you have strained a rather nonsensical point I hope you are happy. However dog spots have nothing to do with the differences between man and beast.

Now that I have demonstrated that there is data to support creation and that fact is established, I guess creationists can take up these asides some of you are so eager to strain.

Remember the data that supports evolution is not stable and neither are the non plausible scenarios put forward to support this theory. Evolutionists often demand a standard of proof from creationists that they themselves are unable to supply.

 

[Psudopod]

Astrid here hasn't got time to waste on pointless rhetoric. It is you that do not understand further straining of points is not going to detract from the fact that creationists have data that supports their paradigms, nor the fact that evolutionists appear to be threatened as demonstrated by simply not concedeeding the point but rather hopping onto every aside to avoid it.

If you or others do not know that dogs without spots are still dogs then I guess it is back to bio101 for for some.

I'll assit by informing you, yes they are. Now that you have strained a rather nonsensical point I hope you are happy. However dog spots have nothing to do with the differences between man and beast.

So you understand that an extra feature in one type of dog doesn't make it not a dog, but you still can't see that that an extra feature in one type of ape doesn't make it not an ape. Huh. You really don't see the logical inconsistancy there? Or you do, but can't bring yourself to admit it?

Now that I have demonstrated that there is data to support creation and that fact is established, I guess creationists can take up these asides some of you are so eager to strain.

No you haven't. Transitionals and junk DNA have both been demonstrated, both things you claim would falsify creationism. You've also not provided anything that directly supports creationism, infact you've been very careful to avoid posting any information about what brand of creationism you believe in. All you've done is said "I don't understand this" or "Look! This transitional has been moved slightly in the tree of life!!! Evolution falsified!!!".

 

[sfs]

Now that I have demonstrated that there is data to support creation and that fact is established,

Not on this thread, you haven't. Pick any piece of fossil evidence you've presented, and explain why it support creation. Don't mention evolution or evolutionists -- just explain why that data point supports creation. I can do that with many kinds of evidence for evolution; why can't you do it for creation?

 

[Loudmouth]

Astrid here hasn't got time to waste on pointless rhetoric.

Then every one of our posts has been a waste of your time.

It is you that do not understand further straining of points is not going to detract from the fact that creationists have data that supports their paradigms,

How do fossils with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features support a creationist paradigm? What evidence would falsify this paradigm? It obviously isn't junk DNA, vestigial organs, or transitionals since we have demonstrated all of these in spades.

nor the fact that evolutionists appear to be threatened as demonstrated by simply not concedeeding the point but rather hopping onto every aside to avoid it.

Conceding what point?

If you or others do not know that dogs without spots are still dogs then I guess it is back to bio101 for for some.

I am not the one who states that differences exclude an organism from a species group. That would be you. So why do big brains exclude humans from the ape group?

However dog spots have nothing to do with the differences between man and beast.

Yeah, they do. They demonstrate how arbitrary your criteria are.

Now that I have demonstrated that there is data to support creation . . .

Where?

Remember the data that supports evolution is not stable and neither are the non plausible scenarios put forward to support this theory.

The theory has been stable for 80 years:

"Having reached the rare age of 100 years, I find myself in a unique position: I'm the last survivor of the golden age of the Evolutionary Synthesis. That status encourages me to present a personal account of what I experienced in the years (1920s to the 1950s) that were so crucial in the history of evolutionary biology. . .

By the end of the 1940s the work of the evolutionists was considered to be largely completed, as indicated by the robustness of the Evolutionary Synthesis. But in the ensuing decades, all sorts of things happened that might have had a major impact on the Darwinian paradigm. First came Avery's demonstration that nucleic acids and not proteins are the genetic material. Then in 1953, the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick increased the analytical capacity of the geneticists by at least an order of magnitude. Unexpectedly, however, none of these molecular findings necessitated a revision of the Darwinian paradigm—nor did the even more drastic genomic revolution that has permitted the analysis of genes down to the last base pair. "

Ernst Mayr: 80 Years of Watching the Evolutionary Scenery

Only the finest of details have changed. The theory itself has been rock steady since the 1930's.

Evolutionists often demand a standard of proof from creationists that they themselves are unable to supply.

I have yet to see anything from the creationist camp that even approaches the ERV evidence. All you can do is make up stories about ERV's being magically poofed into being. You somehow think that this refutes the argument. Sorry, but you have a long way to go before you can complain about evolutionists.

 

[Astridhere]

Who even mentioned same sex? I'm not even talking about the law either. I'm saying that as long as both or all parties in the marriage are capable of consenting to marriage and are of adequate maturity, then I personally have no problem with it.

The Theory of Evolution is also not a tool for outlining morality.
Yet it straw grabs and presumes the sex lives of creatures to support the data that does not simply align with evolution.

Of course it's NOT wrong. Mutes can still give consent and understand the concept of marriage just like any human being. Are you suggesting mutes are merely unintelligent animals?
Apes need reasoning ability to give consent. The basis of protecting people with coginitive disabilities today. Disability does not determine the species range. 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.

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.
So you'd be disgusted at the though of people marrying, say, extraterrestrials? Watching Star Trek must be a real stomach churner for you.
If one believes in evolution they likely think star trek is real...you know the universe is strewen with the precursors to life sprook..too bad you haven't found so much as a bacteria
The fact is, no such "other intelligent ape" has ever been found alive today, nor do I think it would ever be... but if one existed today, I wouldn't care if humans married them. In fact, there's evidence that homo sapiens frequently mated with neanderthal... which is a perfect example of another intelligent species of ape. They've just all gone extinct.
[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]..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.
Here's something that might gross you (and I mean specifically, you) out: If you have any gingers in your family (red hair, freckles), then there's a good chance you have some neanderthal genes in your family. *gasp*
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. 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.
Yep, your ancestors were once promiscuous enough to do the horizontal mambo with other intelligent, consenting apes. Of course, back then, few humans cared about consent. But because of this outbreeding, the human species may have avoided extinction itself by introducing heterosis (aka hybrid vigor) during a period of low population. 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. Great science!
More non plausible scenarios to get around the fact that evolution has been falsified many times.
The fact that we're apes is hardly contrived. It's a genetic, physiological, and morphological fact.
The fact that there are few examples of ape ancestors is also a fact. Maybe apes just poofed into existence.
It's also a means of cataloging things on the tree of life, which is a lot more useful than just arbitrarily assign things to undefined "kinds" and leaving it at that.
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

Yes, humans are a separate species of ape from the other apes on earth. So, if by "kind" you mean "species" you are correct. We are a different "kind" of ape.
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..
Also, only about half of us are men. The other half are women...
Great work!
Rats, monkeys, and humans are all mammals. This has nothing to do with the Christian belief in Satan. Again, it's a genetic, physiological, and morphological fact.
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? When do you think the first navel appeared? What a nonsense this area of evoution truly is!
Any attempt to draw a circle around the same "kind" of creatures as used by creationists have been fruitless altogether. This is partly why we don't use a vague and baseless classification such as "kind" unless it's used as an adjective to describe a more specific level of classification "same kind of genus" or "different kind of species".

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

OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology

You're still making the mistake that "ape" only covers one specific species, I think. I tell you what... find me a picture of an "ape" and post it here. This "ape" has to be the only thing that could possibly be considered an ape. I bet i could find numerous other examples of apes besides human and besides the "ape" that you find.

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.

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. By their own reasonings researchers are suggesting there is no speciation outside of adaptation within kind and that evolution of different kinds from a common ancestor does not occur. Scientists still have no idea what was interbreding 30,000 years ago. Do you really think creationists are silly enough to gobble up any scenario offered up for species connections millions of years old where no DNA is available to test?

Let's not also forget that a whole theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed as an address to the disconcordance of the fossil evidence NOT showing graduation.

Evolutionists can believe all sorts of ridiculous non plausible scenarios to explain away evolutionary falsifications. It is surprising that they have such a hard time understanding creationist scenarios that are much more plausible.

 

[Astridhere]

Not on this thread, you haven't. Pick any piece of fossil evidence you've presented, and explain why it support creation. Don't mention evolution or evolutionists -- just explain why that data point supports creation. I can do that with many kinds of evidence for evolution; why can't you do it for creation?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Creationists do use data and they have plenty of it. Perhaps creationists do not have 100 years of mess and debarkle to rely on, but they do have data and accompanying scenarios just like evolutionists do to support their paradigms, regardless of whether you like or accept them or not.

 

[Astridhere]

Then every one of our posts has been a waste of your time.
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.


How do fossils with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features support a creationist paradigm? What evidence would falsify this paradigm? It obviously isn't junk DNA, vestigial organs, or transitionals since we have demonstrated all of these in spades.

You have demonstrated nothing but your lack of knowledge about the science you try to defend. Why some flip didn't even recognise the term 'junk dne'. That is the talent I am up against.

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.

Conceding what point?

That there is data that can be interpreted as creationist support. After all the data never aligns with evolution for more than a week before it is discredited by another scientist only to be revived by yet another even less plausible scenario.

I am not the one who states that differences exclude an organism from a species group. That would be you. So why do big brains exclude humans from the ape group?

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.

Yeah, they do. They demonstrate how arbitrary your criteria are.
I think you are confusing baramins and discontinuity with your species definition.


Where?



The theory has been stable for 80 years:

"Having reached the rare age of 100 years, I find myself in a unique position: I'm the last survivor of the golden age of the Evolutionary Synthesis. That status encourages me to present a personal account of what I experienced in the years (1920s to the 1950s) that were so crucial in the history of evolutionary biology. . .

By the end of the 1940s the work of the evolutionists was considered to be largely completed, as indicated by the robustness of the Evolutionary Synthesis. But in the ensuing decades, all sorts of things happened that might have had a major impact on the Darwinian paradigm. First came Avery's demonstration that nucleic acids and not proteins are the genetic material. Then in 1953, the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick increased the analytical capacity of the geneticists by at least an order of magnitude. Unexpectedly, however, none of these molecular findings necessitated a revision of the Darwinian paradigm—nor did the even more drastic genomic revolution that has permitted the analysis of genes down to the last base pair. "

Ernst Mayr: 80 Years of Watching the Evolutionary Scenery

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

Only the finest of details have changed. The theory itself has been rock steady since the 1930's.

The only thing that has remained rock solid is "It all evolved"

I have yet to see anything from the creationist camp that even approaches the ERV evidence. All you can do is make up stories about ERV's being magically poofed into being. You somehow think that this refutes the argument. Sorry, but you have a long way to go before you can complain about evolutionists.

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. 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.

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.

 

[No Time]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Creationists do use data and they have plenty of it. Perhaps creationists do not have 100 years of mess and debarkle to rely on, but they do have data and accompanying scenarios just like evolutionists do to support their paradigms, regardless of whether you like or accept them or not.

There are two lots of people you should show this fantastic evidence of yours, firstly the scientific community,
who you won't be surprised to hear will dismiss it out of hand as pure unadulterated rubbish [which it is],
secondly it should be shown to the Internet creationist websites who surprisingly will also dismiss it out of hand as pure unadulterated rubbish, they would use it if it could not be proved to be right or wrong [which it can be] so sadly they can't use it either.

On the one side you have people who will only accept evidence and on the other you have people who need things that while they might not be true they can not be proved to be untrue, why do you think Gods have been part of human history for so long? because Gods can sit on the fence, thousands of them.