Evidence FOR the Creation Theory

[Pah]

A good response would be to provide evidence for "Science says that the locality of the first humans was a "beneficient" enviroment with little need of clothing" if this has any basis in fact then it should be provable according to evidence and not postulations, I have enjoyed the company of several highly intelligent and experienced professors and they have no idea about any safe haven that could have existed for any period of earths history.
one other point I feel should be pointed out is that your statement would have man segregated from the rest of an evolving world because every other creature has a perfectly adapted body for surviving the elements

You did not make any rejoinder to the fact of the purpose of clothing in creationism. That does serious damage to your "clothing argument" Clothing for warmth was not mentioned in the Eden story and I wonder why you pursue that line of argument without addressing that. You seem to have an argument of straw without proper foundation.

I also wonder why you think of Africa as a hostile (not a safe haven) enviroment for the beggings of humankind. That is where the earlier fossils are found, is it not? I wonder if you are unaware of the remote tribes and family units in remote South America and the South Seas where nudity or near nudity is the common "costume". It was only the shame taught by missionaries that forced clothing on their bodies - those without the intrusion of missionaries in their culture are still nude or nearly nude. Why, if you know this, would you not accept nudity in a "tropical" Africa?

so the best answer I can get is postulation based on fiction as an intelligent answer ?
look the statement I made deals with evolutionary advancement and natural selection do not give me all the possible reasons for how they may have dealt with the loss of an adaption that provided a very selectable trait, simply explain how every other creature in existence (observable by science) got to hit the genetic lottery by having correct evolution and we did not, do we not have the same ancestor? then we had the same genetics that have covered them correctly.

The best answer I get completely ignores the origin of land animals that was in the oceans. I see no hair on the present day alligator family, the hippo group, elephants, frogs, fish, whales, etc. Nor is hair evident on the dinosaurs but I do see feathers on tranistional fossils. which go to the purpose of flight and a vehicle for the oil that provides floating capability. Tell me, do you know if the down that provides warmth is year 'round? I don't think it is. I also see cats and dogs and horses shed a winter coat so I don't think that hair or fur is an impediment in summer season - don't you agree?

children can be warmed by thier parents untill the parents die then they do what? warm themselves by the fire they don't have? did he learn from those parents how to fashion coverings that the parents never would have needed to learn to make?

And then, and then they are warmed by sisters and other females in the family or clan. Do you really think parents lived by themselves? The group was a very strong adaption for survival.

the arguement about bipedalism is sound, if a combination of biped and quad is a better trait than a strict biped then explain why evolution would select the lesser? having the combination with intelligence would have been an even more protected and survivable existence right? so then the rules of evolution should have selected it, otherwise we should see other creatures also maladapted to the environment. a logical arguement based on observation.
my world view will be decided by the evidence that proves something, I have studied biology and science for 3 years now and there are to many holes in the evolution theory so lets prove something one way or another based on evidence not postulation or speculation. if you don't have a good solid evidence backed answer then why answer at all?

It is hardly sound. I see a great disparity in the ability of a bear on two legs to chase a human on two legs. The evolution of walking on two legs confers more advantage for survival than is lost by speed against most predators. It certainly provides an advantage in the use of the upper limbs for carrying and fighting as well as providing a greater horizon.

I'm suprised that in three years you can not make a distinction between evolution and abiogenisus (sp?). The are so few "holes" in evolution or even none at all. Abiogenisus has lot's of them but are closing at a much more quickened pace.

In summary, and to the point of the thread, you have presented two arguments for creationism and they have been forcefully rejected. Would you like to add more?

Bob

 

[Scuba Pete]

In my mind (as small as it is)

Evolution is the greatest evidence of creation.

The problem with most anti-creationists, is that they extrapolate the scriptures to an unhealthy degree. Nowhere do they condemn evolution. No where do they say HOW God created the world. It does say he spoke the universe into being (There's your "Big Bang" theory), but it doesn't specify HOW he created everything else, or even the specific time period that was used to do it.

 

[HelpMe]

You did not make any rejoinder to the fact of the purpose of clothing in creationism. That does serious damage to your "clothing argument" Clothing for warmth was not mentioned in the Eden story and I wonder why you pursue that line of argument without addressing that. You seem to have an argument of straw without proper foundation.

if one were to believe in the story of eden, then one should believe in a formerly perfect garden(thus, no need for clothing, as it did not rain), wherever that may of been, it was changed when they were threw out(to where, the 'bible' doesn't specify).do you think the first human according to your dating was actually the first human?or that it even has to be the place of the first humans?why are we the only species to recognize nudity?even if it's only most of us now, that doesn't get into the reason why we do it, if the africans and the missionaries had a similar ancestor as we both agree, then why did the missionaries culture develop nudity awareness?i dont think nudity is a bad thing, or even sinful, i believe the fishermen of yeshua's time, including some of his followers, were naked often.

John 21:7That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his coat about him (for he was naked), and cast himself into the sea.

as well as people less recently(1sam19:24/2sam 6: 14,20/job1:21/isa20:2-4/mic1:8 )now if nudity suits there environment, why shouldn't some africans be nude?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It does say he spoke the universe into being (There's your "Big Bang" theory), but it doesn't specify HOW he created everything else, or even the specific time period that was used to do it.

It also says that he created fowl before insects, spiders, etc.

 

[Scuba Pete]

If the creator wishes to use poetic license and sum up in a dozen or so sentences what took place, who are we to argue.

The point of this passage was not to create a blueprint for creation, but to establish the artist.

At the time, words for "epoch" and such were not available. Conveying such concepts is not that important to the main point: God created the Heavens and the earth all that is on them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

At the time, words for "epoch" and such were not available.

Talk of epochs is irrelevant. One can presume that, even in Biblical Hebrew, the evening and the morning of the 5th day came before the evening and the morning of the 6th day. Sorry attempts to reconcile Genesis with evolution can do no better than engage in semantic acrobatics. Irrespective of how long a "day" might be in your imagination, do you concur that fowl were created before insects or not?

 

[Pah]

if one were to believe in the story of eden, then one should believe in a formerly perfect garden(thus, no need for clothing, as it did not rain), wherever that may of been, it was changed when they were threw out(to where, the 'bible' doesn't specify).

There were trees certainly in the garden - they didn't need nourishment? And take from me, one of life's pleasures is standing naked in a gentle warm rain. (on the way to the hot tub). But you too, did NOT address the reason in Genisus given for clothing - to cover shame. Before anything else, Helpme, establish the factualness of your agruement.

Bob

 

[Yerda]

I like to be a moan, so I'm going to ask again; is there any evidence for creation?

HelpMe, NetDoc, KBC, Lisa, come on, have you anything to add?

 

[HelpMe]

why do you assume that all the rules we (believe we)know had to apply to actions observed/monitored/performed by a 'god'figure?this is placing a limit on said 'god' figure, and thus unreasonable.the trees didn't need nourishment anymore than adam/eve's bodys had to decay like ours do.

pah and t.s.s.
i believe i did address the reason for genesis giving clothing, to cover shame right?would you cite one more creature in all the earth that exhibits this shame as related to nudity?even if some african(or other) tribes practice nudity, this does not explain our conscienceness towards the subject.

t.s.s.
you and other's constant repeating of the question seriously resembles when a 4yr old repeats the word 'why' to everything you say.anything displayed you will dismiss in favor of the reality you now hold, just as you accuse us of doing.not to say that both sides don't do it, but to say that your side does it as well whether or not you recognize it.

what type of evidence would satisfy your ever questioning of creationism?i never said the earth or galaxy was/is young according to the 'bible', i see no reason to make such a statement.what are you looking for?if it is not obvious i believe in a young race for reasons relating to faith, i'm sorry you cannot relate.but again, how can you explain site to a blind man?not a blindfolded man.

 

[Yerda]

t.s.s.
you and other's constant repeating of the question seriously resembles when a 4yr old repeats the word 'why' to everything you say.

Yes, sorry my lecturers say that too sometimes.

anything displayed you will dismiss in favor of the reality you now hold, just as you accuse us of doing.not to say that both sides don't do it, but to say that your side does it as well whether or not you recognize it.

I hold no reality deliberately. I will definitely not dismiss the opinions of those I respect. Despite your attempts to belittle me and your terrible grammar I do like your posts.

And stop saying 'us' and 'you' like opposing forces.

what type of evidence would satisfy your ever questioning of creationism?i never said the earth or galaxy was/is young according to the 'bible', i see no reason to make such a statement.what are you looking for?if it is not obvious i believe in a young race for reasons relating to faith, i'm sorry you cannot relate.but again, how can you explain site to a blind man?not a blindfolded man.

Pretty words.

I'm not looking for solid proof at all, just something that could be called evidence or loosely titled so. Have you any?

 

[HelpMe]

i don't think i try to belittle you, at least not any more than you try to do to me, or your professors try to do to you.excuse me if it comes off as such.

i see no reason for any.why couldn't creationism of happened?what is it you want evidence for?a young human race, or against evolution?as has been cited, neither prove creationism, nothing really does unless you have an outsider's view.NOT to say that i or christians have that outside view, just to say we have faith in it.

logically speaking, i don't believe creation offers evidence or needs to.but the flaws in arguments that attempt to disregard creationism are on topic.


may i attempt to make a parable for your slandering pleasure?if so, read on.

imagine your dvd player is (#) minutes into playing a movie and then you turn your tv on, what evidence not regarding the dvd player(comparable to ID) but only the tv do you have to offer that the dvd was already playing?obviously it would seem that there is much, but from the outside view including the dvd player, we can see that the screen on the tv was started in motion, even though it did not already exist(visibly).

was that bad?

 

[Yerda]

logically speaking, i don't believe creation offers evidence or needs to.but the flaws in arguments that attempt to disregard creationism are on topic.

So are you telling me special creation has no evidence?

Sure, evolution is full of holes, I can't see how this would back up creationist theory.

imagine your dvd player is (#) minutes into playing a movie and then you turn your tv on, what evidence not regarding the dvd player(comparable to ID) but only the tv do you have to offer that the dvd was already playing?obviously it would seem that there is much, but from the outside view including the dvd player, we can see that the screen on the tv was started in motion, even though it did not already exist(visibly).

was that bad?

I would say the LCD and timer. Obviously you're much more clever than you let on, because I have not the slightest what you are talking about HelpMe.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Irrespective of how long a "day" might be in your imagination, do you concur that fowl were created before insects or not?

InDeutably!

The length of "day" in the Ancient Hebrew left a LOTto the imagination. It came from an ancient root meaning "warm" and denoted a work period. There has been debate as to whether it indicated the heat of the sun, or the heat of the worker (sweaty stuff, eh?) For us Homo Saps, that's about 8 to 12 hours depending on just how hot we get. For God, that could be just about any length of time he so desired.

II Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

But hey, God invented time, so he knows how to twist it better than we do!

As for the order, that doesn't bother me in the least. I don't base my faith on the Book of Genesis, but rather on the empty tomb.

In fact, I am looking for a scripture where God says that Scripture is perfect. Not just inspired, but perfect. I am not sure it does. God works through faulty men... He has worked through incomplete translations, and I don't see why he couldn't work through scriptures that weren't perfect.

But I am quite open to their perfection, or imperfection as soon as I see what he says about them. Just seeking the truth in a NetDoc sort of way.

 

[HelpMe]

So are you telling me special creation has no evidence?...

I would say the LCD and timer.

1-what evidence would it leave?it's creation, not comparable to say cooking a cheesecake.mmm

2-sorry, my tv does not have lcd or a timer(i thought they were the same thing).basically what i was saying is that if life were created in motion, there would be no proof although there would seem to be evidence against creationism.

oh and btw, thanks.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

InDeutably! .

Very nice!

 

[Pah]

pah and t.s.s.
i believe i did address the reason for genesis giving clothing, to cover shame right?would you cite one more creature in all the earth that exhibits this shame as related to nudity?even if some african(or other) tribes practice nudity, this does not explain our conscienceness towards the subject.

It is immaterial to the point of the thread what other creatures are nude. The topic of clothing was an arguement given that was falacious in itself. Shame was not and is not innate but is an emotional reaction to societal rules.

Bob

 

[HelpMe]

which came to place how and why only in humans?

 

[Pah]

which came to place how and why only in humans?

Shame was not and is not innate but is an emotional reaction to societal rules.

I see that my statement is more an argument for evolution than a rebuttal of an faulty argument for creationism but only when you focus on shame itself. There, in fact, was no shame felt by Adam and Eve, the error introduced by authors who did feel shame.

Bob

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

why couldn't creationism of happened? ... NOT to say that i or christians have that outside view, just to say we have faith in it.

Exactly right - well done.

I have a daughter and son-in-law who are Orthodox Jews. With their permission, I bought the grandkids a family membership to the Museum of Science and Industry. They love the dinosaurs. They also believe that the earth is a bit more than 57 centuries old, and that G-d created it, replete with fossil record, as a test of faith.

My son-in-law is quite clear about the science and, unlike many Christian fundamentalists, has a great deal of respect for it. When asked, he will tell you quite frankly that he does not understand why HaShem created the world the way He did, but that, first and foremost, he has faith in the Torah.

In my opinion, this kind of honesty and integrity deserves nothing but respect.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

In my opinion, this kind of honesty and integrity deserves nothing but respect.

I couldn't agree more, Deut. Likewise, I find the intentional ignorance that is driving this thread deserves nothing but contempt - not even pity should be wasted on those that insist on self deceit, then attempt to perpetrate it on others.

TVOR