• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

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

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Why doesnt creationism need any data?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Hespera, Jul 19, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,005
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    ^_^ -- Good one!
     
  2. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    The constancy of physical forces is an observation, not an assumption. What you and dad have now admitted is that every physical law would have to be different in order for creationism to be true. I would have to agree with you guys, but that is also why I and the rest of the scientific community rejects creationism. When you have to change physical laws to reach your conclusion it isn't the physical laws that are flawed, it is your conclusion.
     
  3. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    That is shown every day in astronomy. The physical forces that astronomers observe in distant galaxies are the exact forces we observe today. If the laws of physics were different in the past it would show up in the field of astronomy, but it hasn't. The only reason that you want these laws to be different is that you don't like the conclusion that the evidence leads to. You have zero evidence for physical forces or laws that were different in the past while science has mountains of evidence that they were the same. I will go with the evidence and ignore your fantasies.

    So says a man.

    How is the gullibility of others my problem? If you really think that writing something down makes it true then I have a bridge to sell you.
     
  4. sandwiches

    sandwiches Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

    +111
    Atheist
    Single
    Were you there, son? No. Act like it.

    So, unless you can show us that there is reason to trust them, stay at the kiddie table.
     
  5. sandwiches

    sandwiches Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

    +111
    Atheist
    Single
    That's a good point. We might not have all the right answers through science, yet, but at least scientists are trying. Whereas Biblists and other religionists seem afraid to even try to be correct. I guess when you build your entire worldview and belief system on a foundation of self-delusion, it's a little scary to try to mess with it and feel like your entire life is crumbling around you.
     
  6. Delphiki

    Delphiki Well-Known Member

    +139
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    Unless it's Catholicism, which likes to begrudgingly concede to reason and evidence, ages after the rest of us.
     
  7. super animator

    super animator Dreamer

    +1,933
    Agnostic
    I think your confusing the word Religion for the word belief. In this case their beliefs.
     
  8. Nathan Poe

    Nathan Poe Well-Known Member

    +1,589
    Agnostic
    US-Democrat
    Well, like any bureaucracy, there's a bit of a backlog.

    They did get around to pardoning Galileo a couple of decades ago, after all.
     
  9. Nathan Poe

    Nathan Poe Well-Known Member

    +1,589
    Agnostic
    US-Democrat

    Religion in the case of institutionalized beliefs as a means of social control.
     
  10. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member

    +40
    Christian
    Married
    Psudopod, I have replied many times and said an ape does not meet the criteria of humans due to not having sophisticated speech and higher reasoning ability.

    It is not the arms and legs that distinguishes mankind from beast and non humans primates.


    [​IMG]
    Mammaliaformes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This is a mammaliform

    [​IMG]Plesiadapis.

    So whatevever creature was the first monkey or ape may not have had long arms like non human primates do now, eg chimps. Indeed it looks like the legs are longer than the arms in plesiadapis. Even today the tree swingers have longer arms that those that do not.

    As I do not believe in a common ancestor for all mammals, quite clearly to me anyway, what you have found is fossil evidence of creatures like squirrels and mice, stacks of apes, right up until mankind is found in the fossil record dated to 3.7mya with the Laetoli footprints, and these footprints could not possibly belong to a 3.5ft, curved fingered ape.

    As a creationist I look to discontinuity between kinds. I may not be able to answer every question definitiely about every single species and virus but that is OK as neither can evolutionists.

    The fact that God reused His great ideas and best designs in various creatures, like giving frogs and mankind the same legs and whales and primates the same neural spindles means He did not need to reinvent the wheel with each and every creation.

    So again let me say the difference between man and beast is sophisticated language and higher reasoning ability and these are required to light and control fires, make stone huts, and understand Gods' instructions.
     
  11. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member

    +40
    Christian
    Married
    No that I am afraid is showing a great deal of ignorance. I alone have produced helium dating and links to some of the science that stands behind creation. Other have also provided creationist evidence and science. Just because you do not read the links or unaware of the information is a lacking on your part, not ours.

    It may be fun to spend your time ridiculing creationists but it is extremely erraneous.

    It is very much about interpretation of the evidence and data and creationists can interpret the data to suit just as well as evolutionists, but based on different assumptions.
     
  12. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member

    +40
    Christian
    Married

    I don't think it is I that has trouble reasoning!

    I have stated many times that junk DNA does not sit with creationism and was one of the things you guys used to run into creationists. Now you have found junk DNA is not junk at all.

    Vestigal organs do not align with creationism and once again this used to be run into creationists and still is. However scientists are also finding this assertion erraneous as they do have function. eg human apendix.

    An ape like creature, eg the erraneous sketches of Neanderthal years ago, the bent over half ape half human, that can discuss afterlife would also suffice to disprove creation, but you cannot produce one of them as evidence either as they all mysteriously became extinct. How unfortunate!.

    What you can present as evidence for evolution is a list of misrepresented kinds and species thrown into family ranks and non plausible scenarios, but no evidence that discredits creation.

    .
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2011
  13. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    Groups of species are not determined by their differences. It is determined by shared characteristics. I can point to a ton of differences between bears and bats, but both are still mammals because of the features that they share.

    Yes, it is, among other physical features.

    We don't care what you believe or don't believe. We are interested in what you can demonstrate through evidence.

    Why not?

    So how can chimps and gorillas be in the same kind? Gorilla features are discontinuous with the chimp range. Chihuahua features are discontinuous with the great dane range, so they are separate created kinds as well, according to your criteria.

    What you seem to ignore is that a transitional would be outside of the modern human physical range. It has to be, by definition. You can't be intermediate if you are exactly like the thing you are supposed to be intermediate to. If asked if orange is an intermediate color between red and yellow you would answer "NO" because orange is not red. How does that make sense?

    So why didn't God reuse feathers when he made bats? Why didn't penguins get mammary glands like seals have?

    How are these things required of other apes in order for them to share a common ancestor with humans?
     
  14. sandwiches

    sandwiches Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

    +111
    Atheist
    Single
    Which assumptions do creationists use?

    Which assumptions do scientists use?

    How can we test to see if those assumptions are correct?
     
  15. cubinity

    cubinity jesus is; the rest is commentary.

    +334
    Agnostic
    Private
    Genesis, in my native language and favorite translation, as interpreted by me and my church, is the objective truth, regardless of any indication of the contrary.

    Peer review improves objectivity. Thus, credibility comes with careful communication of test practices so they can be effectively repeated, reviewed and verified by others, including opponents.

    When a person that wants to prove you wrong does what you did and gets results that support your assumptions rather than their own, I would say that is a pretty solid test. When even the people that share your biases run your tests and can't get the same results, I would say that is a pretty solid test, too.
     
  16. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    Creationist predictions failed more than 200 years ago. Adam Sedgwick sums it up well:

    "Bearing upon this difficult question, there is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion, when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth. We saw the clearest traces of diluvial action, and we had, in our sacred histories, the record of a general deluge. On this double testimony it was, that we gave a unity to a vast succession of phenomena, not one of which we perfectly comprehended, and under the name diluvium, classed them all together.

    To seek the light of physical truth by reasoning of this kind, is, in the language of Bacon, to seek the living among the dead, and will ever end in erroneous induction. Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.
    "
    Adam Sedgwick, 1831

    Creationism was falsified 180 years ago. It's predictions failed. They are still wrong.

    It shows honesty.

    Since when? Has someone found an organism that does not use the same codon tables as the rest of life?




    There is DNA in every genome that is most certainly junk DNA. Researchers removed a 1 million base pair chunk of junk DNA from the mouse genome. Guess what happened? Nothing. The mice were unaffected.

    Vestigial does not mean functionless. Vestigial means that an organ serves a rudimentary or secondary function compared to the same organ in another species. This is why the human appendix is vestigial. In other species the appendix is a much larger organ that is used to house bacteria that digest cellulose. This is the primary function of the appendix as part of the caecum. It does NOT serve this purpose in humans. Instead, it serves a very rudimentary role of simply housing commensal bacteria as an afterthought, at times to the detriment of the host.

    Another great example is the extensor coccygis muscle. This muscle spans a fused joint in the human tailbone. It is a completely useless muscle since the joint can not flex at all. In other species it is used to lift the tail.

    It would appear that creationism is now falsifed. There is junk DNA and there are vestigial organs.

    Why do you need to put your faith in anything? Why not look at the evidence and see where it leads?


    So you are saying that, according to evolution, every human ancestor down the line was capable of discussing an afterlife?

    How did you determine that they are misrepresented?
     
  17. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +6,654
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Yes, actually. There are quite a few alternative genetic codes found here and there -- many in mitochondria, some in bacteria. All are closely related to the standard code, however, and could clearly have evolved from it. In an organism with a small genome, rarely used codons may become superfluous, and a change in their mapping can occur without ill effects.
     
  18. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    Ding ding ding. What I am asking for is a complete departure, like CCC for methionine.
     
  19. Doveaman

    Doveaman Re-Created, Not Evolved.

    +573
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Uniformitarianism is not an observation, it is an assumption about the past that is based on the interpretation of the present. And it is an assumption that not all scientists agree with, not only creationists.
     
  20. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    Yes, it is. Astronomy has confirmed uniformitarianism. Everywhere they look they observe the same physical laws through both space and time.

    One example is Supernova 1987a:

    Supernova 1987a

    They were able to confirm that the speed of light and rates of radioactive decay were the same 160,000 years ago as they are now. Each and every star that scientists look at produce the same spectrographic results as elements on Earth do, confirming that chemistry and physics were the same in the past.

    In astronomy, you can literally look to see what the laws of physics were in the past. Observations of distant stars and galaxies is direct observation of the past.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...