• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence FOR the Creation Theory

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
Ceridwen018 said:
***NOTE***

We are getting a little rough here, guys. We're here to present science, not name call--so let's get down to it, shall we?
After some thought, I agree with this sentiment, Ceridwen, and I am sure that I am contributing to it as much as anyone. I'll retire from this part of the debate, and leave it to yourself, Spinkles, Deut, etc. to carry the flag of reality. To be honest, I was starting to get frustrated by the repetitive nature of the discourse, and I was letting my emotions get to me. My point to Lisa about wanting to remove her educational background from the table, after she brought it up, stands.
With that, I'll take a day or two away from this thread, and let time work it's miracles. Perhaps a new universe will be created and then we can start a new thread.

TVOR
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
if you claim perception to the absolute reality TVOR, why return?you're already there.

Ceridwen018 said:
I rather like the idea that scientific theories can be altered to incorporate new discoveries. It is a skill not shared by the creationism theory or the bible.
admission of error?i agree(TVOR implied a situation where creation could not logically be tested by science, i apologize that i will not go through his last few fiery posts to find it), as nothing has disproven creation unlike former evolution theories, i also see no cause.
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
HelpMe said:
O great god of english TVOR?...does your lid popping mechanism only react to creationists or does it have a recuperating period?what does privy mean here?
Okay - one more before I go.
I have told you before, HelpMe, that I have no problem with the occasional typographical error that all of us make from time to time. It is the absolute unending butchering of the English language, and the total disregard for rules of grammar, capitalization, and punctuation that make your posts so hard to digest.
I think that for the sake of civility, I'll put you on my IGNORE list, and we'll both be better off for it. Do me one favor - don't try to antagonize me - we'll both end up barred from this site.

Thanks,
TVOR
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
funny thing is, you didn't respond to constant errors, but to specific ones that as i attempted to show, really have no signifigance.yet they heat you up.
The Voice of Reason said:
I think that for the sake of civility, I'll put you on my IGNORE list, and we'll both be better off for it.
you could just be mature, we had a discussion about life experiences and maturity in another thread didn't we?you came to the conclusion that you were ahead of anyone 20 yrs younger than you, why not show it?i'm glad i don't have the heart to quit on you, so i won't ignore you.i think i'll be insulted less now, soo cool.
With that, I'll take a day or two away from this thread
if i were to call you a liar, i would be telling the truth.


honestly, except for opposition, there is no reason why you should ignore lisa.
 

LISA63

Member
In a sense, I absolutely agree. Observation is a fundamental part of forming theories. However, it takes only one contradictory observation, experiment, etc. to disprove a theory. Miller's experiment with producing amino acids from non-living chemicals disproves the theory that living things can only come from other living things.

I see you are not familiar with all the specifics of the miller urey experiment, I have studied the process and the proceedure.
lets see what you know. do you know what a cold trrap is?
why did miller need it?
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
The Voice of Reason said:
Touche. I'll eat my incredulity and ignorance of the word - nicely done. Big of you to admit that it was made up, but nonetheless, I'll eat it.

TVOR

PS - while we're admitting it, don't bother to look up bisfurcal or disbondulate - I made those up myself. :)
What a guy.

Some of our members have pointed out the holes in evolutionary theory in response to Ceridwen's challenge to provide some evidence of creation. Truly, the concept of evolution is far from complete and if you don't accept it I say good! Questioning minds are useful things. But evidence for creation is never going to materialise out of that critique. The failings of science to comprehensively explain how adaptation, mutation, variation, and other -ations have transformed life is not evidence suggesting god 'created' life. Disproving one idea not proving another.

So, does anyone have evidence that supports the creation theory?
 

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
Lisa63 said:
so when did we need to adapt to being hairless?
and how long would a hairless man live without before he could learn to improve?
I just thought about another example: Elephants and their use of dust and mud to protect their skin from the sun. This idea is more the child of evolutionary thinking, which then led to physical evolution. Humans had to first come up with the idea of clothing and then implement it. Humans became hairless as a result of their clothing, just like in other animals. For instance, if I do not put blankets on my horse when the weather begins to turn cold, he will grow a big, thick winter coat. However, if I do blanket him, the thickness of his coat will not change much. Actually, the hair on his neck and legs where the blanket doesn't cover will grow, and those partss covered by the blanket stays the same. Like most other mammals, horses' winter coat growth is regulated by temperature receptors in their bodies.

we are taught how to deal with life from our parents according to their existing understanding but without the need to form coverings where would this wisdom come from?
If the need for clothing never arose, we might all be running around naked right now. You are assuming that the need for clothing was never an issue, which, given the wide spread of humans living in vastly different climates, obviously the need did arise at one point or another.

all I can see is this naked guy freezing his butt off trying to figure out how to stay warm after his parents died. hahaha
Thanks for the visual. :biglaugh:

HelpMe said:
admission of error?i agree(TVOR implied a situation where creation could not logically be tested by science, i apologize that i will not go through his last few fiery posts to find it), as nothing has disproven creation unlike former evolution theories, i also see no cause.
Please note that I said, 'redrafted', not disproven. The theory of evolution has been tweaked and altered here and there, but never has it been disproven.
 

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
I see you are not familiar with all the specifics of the miller urey experiment, I have studied the process and the proceedure.
lets see what you know. do you know what a cold trrap is?
why did miller need it?
Nope. Please post.
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
if one person presents a situation that they think proves evolution...and others agree, it is referred to by those others as proof.the more that agree with it, the more 'logically sound' it is supposed to be.

the same is of creation, though not recognized by some on these boards.

wrong?
 

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
if one person presents a situation that they think proves evolution...and others agree, it is referred to by those others as proof.the more that agree with it, the more 'logically sound' it is supposed to be.
It's not about how many people belive in it, but about how many tests it passes.
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
Ceridwen018 said:
Humans became hairless as a result of their clothing, just like in other animals...

Please note that I said, 'redrafted', not disproven. The theory of evolution has been tweaked and altered here and there, but never has it been disproven.
and the naked mole rat became hairless as a result of their...shelter?

if you think that's different, then yes, i do note that you used the word 'redraft' conveniently.

if one aspect of a theory is seen as wrong or disproven, it will be changed/'redrafted' to accomodate(sp) new discoveries*, which isn't to say that the aspect was seen as wrong in the first place...what?

is darwins theory(according to darwin, not the modifications) right or wrong?

It's not about how many people belive in it, but about how many tests it passes.
although the tests must satisfy your desires to be valid right?no matter how many people believe otherwise?







now switch 'your' with 'my'.
 

LISA63

Member
A note to all of the members here, I have made a copy of this thread and I will be sharing this with my class as we have a session next week to discuss current public belief and I think this would be a great piece of work for us to show just how far the evolution arguement has degraded without science to back its wild beliefs.
thanx for your participation
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
geeze I leave the forums alone for ONE DAY and look what I miss. :bonk:

anyway, about amino acids forming naturally... they have been found in deep space, so the likelyhood of thier being on anchient Earth is pretty good. Apparently they are quite common, and thus life in the univerce may be more common than most people think.
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/7/8/7

Moving on, as for the biology of humanity. Being naked skined is a great advantage for us, we are after all air cooled by evaporation and having fur would only interfear with that process. Thus in the summer we shed our cloths in favor of being as naked as possible.
As for bipedalism makeing us better, how many quadrapeds are capable of killing a biped? Answer: all the carnivors, and most of the herbavors. ;)
Now on to deveolpment of shelter, our closest relations the apes all build nests for the night, not very unlike our primitive dwellings. We just impoved on an already available idea. Much like tools wich apes (and other animals) also use.

The oldest (at about 300,000 years), remains of Homo Sapien are found in Africa.
At the time Africa wasn't as dry as it is today. Evidence for this comes from rock carvings in the middle of the Sahara desert that show trees, elephants, giraffes and other animals.
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/ent/A0842147.html
http://www.projectexploration.org/nytimes/

As for dinosaurs Mr. Spinkles you are part right, the asteroid it appear was just the final nail in the coffin for many families of animals. The world was changing drastically at this time, and many factors contributed to the great extinction. The shallow seas that covered most of the world were retreating and becoming the deeper oceans that we have today. This helped to doom the Mososaurs, Plesiosaurs, Plyosaurs, Ictheosaurs, Marine Crocs and hosts of corals, ammonites, belomites and fish. This may have also contributed to the loss of the Pterosaurs as they were primarily fish eaters. Also lost were several types of early birds such as the toothed Enantiornithes, Confuciusornithidae, and others. The land was upheaving due to increased volcanic activity that formed for instance the Rocky Mountians. On land the last of the Labarithondont amphibians, rauisuchians, the Muliburculate mammals all died out. For plant life, many types of Cycads, Ferns and Conifers died out, thought I'll admit that Paleobotony is not my strong suit. If you want more info on plant extinctions due to the K-T event let me know and I'll look into it more.
Whatever caused the K-T extinction DID NOT just kill the Dinosaurs.

anyway, I hope this is a good start for answering your quetions, if you need me to elaborate any more on this just let me know and I'll do what I can to help you.

wa:do
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
i don't believe she said her school was teaching creationism, i believe she said she was opposing that which is being (in her opinion) erronously taught to her?

Ceridwen018 said:
No problem here. The earliest human skull on record is dated at about 160,000 years. A bit shy of a million, wouldn't you say?
Painted_Wolf said:
The oldest (at about 300,000 years), remains of Homo Sapien are found in Africa.
i see no problem in considering agreeing with those that agree with themselves.

again, to anyone, from like 3 pages ago, did dinosaurs live with humans?
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
I have to admit what school are you attending? I am a biology student myself, at Plymouth State University. I'm happy to say we just got ourselves a new Science building. It looks like the stereotype clean shiney lab... I wonder how long that will last under real use. ;)
On the flip side my friend who studies Psysics at Lowel University has a building from the 70's that looks like Frankenstiens lab. He uses an old (60's) Particle accelerator that is almost scary looking. :jiggy:

wa:do
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
no, dinosaurs did not live with humans... we are seperated by about 65 million years.

Ceredwin are you talking H.Sapien or H. Sapien sapien? I will admit that I used the dates for H.Sapien rather than the more recent H. S. s. I'm not shure where to draw the line between the two without more personal reserch.

wa:do
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top