I try to based my beliefs on hard evidence not popular assertions. As I said, I haven't seen any conclusive scientifically tested evidence of these things.
PapaNew post #54: "No valid scientifically tested artifact has been validated to show 'modern man' existed before 6000 years.
The evidence is not only anemic, it’s non-existent.
Maybe something else like dinosaurs or monkey-type creatures.
But not 'modern man.' "
PapaNew post #81 "I try to based my beliefs on hard evidence not popular assertions.
As I said, I haven't seen any conclusive scientifically tested evidence of these things. "
Drew68 post #102: "Don't pick fights with new-earth creationists unless you have ample supply of aspirin handy.
It is an exercise in futility.
Sadly, their clown car shows up on every science-related thread posted on FR making an intelligent discussion of such topics pretty much off-limits."
Drew68 pretty much said it all, but still important to understand a bit of the how posters like PapaNew distort the truth.
In this particular example, PapaNew is relying on his unique (indeed, secret) definitions of terms like "valid science" and "modern man".
When PapaNew says "validated by true scientific investigation", he means: "validated by reading the Bible", since in PapaNew's mind, any investigation which might disagree with PapaNew's interpretations of Bible, cannot be "true science".
When PapaNew says "modern man", he means "mankind as described in the Bible -- as interpreted by PapaNew".
Since PapaNew makes no secret of his religious beliefs, understanding how he defines scientific terms is not all that difficult, once you "get it".