• 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. Jazer

    Jazer Guest

    +0
    The Bible is made up of the History or genealogy of real physical people.
     
  2. driewerf

    driewerf a day at the Zoo

    +1,258
    Atheist
    Married
    Because Mulsims do not form the majority of the people. And because even within the muslim community only the fundamenalists reject evolution (Ahrun Yahyah and the like).
     
  3. Nathan Poe

    Nathan Poe Well-Known Member

    +1,589
    Agnostic
    US-Democrat
    As well as the stories and mythology of not-so-real, mythological people.
     
  4. mzungu

    mzungu INVICTUS

    +183
    Atheist
    Married
    Yes it does refer to people because without people there is no religion but the Bible does not ask us to worship people but GOD, and GOD is spiritual!
     
  5. Doveaman

    Doveaman Re-Created, Not Evolved.

    +573
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    So are you saying scientists and creationists are all alike.
     
  6. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,005
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    If this is the answer you want to stick with, then I'm going to pass on accepting that chart.

    Unless you're talking about atheistic Muslims, Muslims are TEs.

    My whole point is that, sans atheism, the Arab world and the Jewish world are at least theistic evolutionists, meaning they are creationists.

    So your point -- that in Europe, creationists are a rarer commodity -- can take a hike.
     
  7. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member

    +40
    Christian
    Married

    I do not think one needs evidence to have faith. Many uneducated people believe in both creation and evolution just on faith. However it just so happens that the scientific evidence and data is more supportive of a biblical creation than evolution, and that is a plus.
     
  8. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,005
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Then what is your opinion of an atheist who honestly believes he would become a believer if he saw this evidence and data himself?
     
  9. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member

    +40
    Christian
    Married
    I'd really like an evolutionist to explain something to me.

    This is Ardi
    [​IMG]
    You can see the short thumb and very human like hand. Ardi is dated to 4.4mya and does not appear to have curved fingers

    Then below is Lucy
    [​IMG]
    Lucy has curved ape fingers and is dated to 3.2mya. Lucy and other afarensis were not found with feet and only a few hand fragments. The feet were sketched in as a response to the Laetoli footprints. Up until then afarensis was thought to still have ape feet.

    Then there is this Australopithecus sediba hand below that displays once again a long thumb dated to 1.9mya. Some ankle bones were also found demonstrating ape like features.
    [​IMG]
    Direct ancestor of Homo genus? Fossils show human-like hand, brain and pelvis in early hominin


    How could a reasearcher describe these fingers as human like, when clearly they are not human like at all? Sediba's skull looks similar to Turkana Boy's skull and Sediba has a small brain capacity of 420cc.
    Australopithecus sediba paved the way for Homo species, new studies suggest

    Now Turkana Boy was not found with either hands or feet and is dated to 1.5mya, and other erectus dating from 1.8mya. Forgetting about assumptions and just looking at the evidence you have of feet and hands in the fossil record there appears to be no reason to think that Turkana Boy and other erectus also had similar feet and hands to Sediba. Clearly if Sediba at 1.9mya had ape like traits in her feet, then it is unlikely that Afarensis could have more human feet than sediba at 3.2mya.

    Now we know Ardi, Lucy and Erectus are now challenged as direct human ancestors. However, as much as I disagree with evolutionists, I still try to see what evolutionists see in the evidence.

    Why would an evolutionary researcher suggest Sediba is in the human line, when quite clearly, the hands appear even less human than evolutionists think Ardi's hands were?

    Also why would evolutionists not credit similar Sediba style ape feet and hands to erectus dated around the same age? Do you really believe that in around 200,000-500,000 years Sediba's ape hand could have evolved into a fully modern hand with a reduced thumb as well as the assumed modern feet in Turkana Boy?

    All this is on the backdrop of finding the Laetoli fully human footprints dated to 3.7 million years ago, which of course proves to me that mankind was here before any of these supposed intermediates.

    I seriously believe there is much data that supports creation and discredits evolution. However I would be interested to hear what sense evolutionists make of this data and if they agree that sediba may be in the human line.
     
  10. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member

    +40
    Christian
    Married
    The easiest thing for an atheist to do is to ignore discrediting data and hope it will resolve itself in the fullness of time, as with out God there can be no other answer for an atheist apart from life having evolved either on earth or elsewhere.
     
  11. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,005
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    What are 'bones' and 'creation' doing in the same post?

    The creation has nothing to do with bones, which came much later, and had nothing whatsoever to do with it (the creation).
     
  12. mzungu

    mzungu INVICTUS

    +183
    Atheist
    Married
    AV the chart is accurate. Do not confuse your perception of religion to the perception other Christians have worldwide.

    No such thing as Atheistic Muslims. What you fail to understand is that in Europe and much of the world Christians and Muslims see religion as something spiritual. In most countries worldwide evolution is taught in schools. This does in no way create any conflict with religion as the way religion is perceived is very different to the way Americans see it.

    If you mean by God creating the first single celled creature that gave rise to all living things then yes; But creationism as you believe it to be is not what the vast majority of Christians in Europe believe in.

    Absolutely not. I was citing facts and not personal opinions. Everyone must be free to worship and believe what he likes.:wave:
     
  13. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    +649
    Agnostic
    Single
    Your replies are just getting poorer and poorer. You are not even trying anymore, are you?

    Creationists and scientists were alike in believing in creationism, since there was no alternative and because it was the historical default. Scientists determined creationism was wrong, and accepted that it was wrong. They replaced creationism with a theories that was grounded in evidence, rather than fanciful interpretation of scripture. Creationists, on the other hand, are quite aware that according to sciecne creationism is wrong.. they all know that scientists have concluded that the earth is very old, and we share common ancestry with other life on earth. They choose to reject what we have learned via science and instead continue to believe in creationism. Even worse, they claim it is "The Truth."
     
  14. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member

    +40
    Christian
    Married
    AV1611VET says..

    "What are 'bones' and 'creation' doing in the same post?"

    The creation has nothing to do with bones, which came much later, and had nothing whatsoever to do with it (the creation). "

    My quote function is not working, so I have replied as such. Sorry!

    I'm sorry but I do not understand your reply.

    Quite plainly, I am disputing the thread topic by demonstrating that indeed there is plenty of evidence and data that supports biblical creation as well as plenty of data that discredits evolution.

    I have presented evidence of the ape hand of sediba that demonstrates a very long thumb in comparison to Ardi, 4,4mya, whom is depicted as having a much more human thumb than a direct ancestor dated to 1.9mya.

    A dilemma for evolutionists, it appears, unless you are able to defend the data in evolutionary terms.

    As for me, I am fine. I have produced data by evolutionary researchers of fully human footprints, Laetoli dated to 3.7 million years, which could not belong to a 3.5ft curved fingered ape, that places mankind before any of these supposed ancestors. Mankind predates any of the supposed intermediates. You see this is supplying data and using plausible explanations to interpret the data in creationists terms.

    The discreditation of evolution is another avenue of revealing the non plausible scenario of interpreting the data, the footprints, as belonging to a 3.5ft, curved fingered creature that is no longer seen as being a human ancestor.

    The same data, different interpretations. One is non plausible the other is plausible. My point. The data actually supports the creationists paradigms better than evolutionary ones and this is just one example.

    Additionally my earlier post today requests evolutionists to explain the mystery of the Sediba long thumb given Ardis is much more human like though 2.4myo, the likeness of australopithecus sediba skull looking very much like Turkana Boy and small brained, and if evolutionists accept Sediba as being a direct human ancestor given the obviously ape and tiny hand with a ridiculously long thumb that has been found.

    All these are very fair questions given the thread topic.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2011
  15. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member

    +40
    Christian
    Married
    I guess you will have no problem replying to my post with some plausible explanations re recent data on Sediba etc. You should also be able to speak as to why I and other creationists can produce plausible explanations of the data that align with creationism while evolutionists appear to be unable to.
     
  16. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +6,654
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I asked you before, but you didn't answer: what creationist paradigm(s) are you talking about? Since they contradict one another wildly, I don't see how any data set could support all of them, so which are you claiming support for? And please be more specific about how these hand fossils support that paradigm: if creationism of your favorite flavor is true, what kind of fossil should we be expecting to find? Why, under this paradigm, should we be finding any fossils at all that have a mosaic of human and nonhuman features?
     
  17. Davian

    Davian fallible

    +1,159
    Ignostic
    Married
    What I find interesting is that AV says that there is *no* evidence for 'creation' and does go on about it. You are claiming that there is plenty of evidence.

    How do the two of you reach a consensus on this? Who is going to give ground first?
     
  18. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member

    +40
    Christian
    Married
    Davian says

    What I find interesting is that AV says that there is *no* evidence for 'creation' and does go on about it. You are claiming that there is plenty of evidence.

    How do the two of you reach a consensus on this? Who is going to give ground first?


    I can only say that any creationist that thinks there is no evidence for creation has not researched sufficiently. As I said some evolutionists and creationists can defend their stance by no more than by faith. That's fine. I can se plenty of evidence for creation.

    Human footprints dated to 3.7mya is evidence of mankind appearing in the fossil record in the same height range we see today, as they are full sized. Humans are found to be more recent than apes which also aligns with biblical creation. So interpreting the data, as provided by your researchers, as demonstrating mankind being found fully bipedal and predating supposed intermediates is excellent evidence for creation and is plausible if evolution is not presumed. To say these footprints belong to a 3.5ft curved fingered creature that was not found with feet and is now not even in the human line is simply non plausible or at least not as plausible.This is one of many lines I have followed that provides support for creationist paradigms, and there are plenty.

    This creationist link speaks to same.

    LiveLeak.com - Hmmm? No one is questioning the age of the footprint? Evolutionists dream come true

    So there is evidence for creation and I have no idea why a creationist would say that there wasn't.

     
  19. Nostromo

    Nostromo Brian Blessed can take a hike

    +48
    Atheist
    Private
    From reference.com: :)

    creationism
    "The belief that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing."

    Theistic evolutionists aren't creationists.

    Besides, Muslims and Jews probably make up about 4% of the UK population, so here at least they're still a small minority even if they are all creationists.
     
  20. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,005
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Respectfully speaking -- no, there isn't.

    Anything you can produce in the way of evidence, would have to come well-after the creation week.

    Aside from being w/o navels, even Adam & Eve wouldn't be able to produce evidence of the creation events, if their children would have asked for it.

    Yes, they could say to their children, "Look around you. What do you see? Evidence everywhere!"

    But that would not answer their question from a purely scientific point of view; as it doesn't tell them the method employed, or even the order it was employed in.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...