A Case For Creation

[celldog]

I just posted a link that explained this. Is your knowledge of science that far outdated?

Bill you can post all the links you want. But you still can't draw what a man looks like from his tooth.

If you found my tooth in a parking lot, you'd still have no idea what I look like. This is simply the result of an over-active imagination and the hope that there is no creator.

 

[celldog]

You're not that loved

Thatnks for the confirmation. So what part of Memphis? Whitehaven, South, North, Hickory Hill, G-Town?

 

[bored]

"Oh Celldog, you came, and you posted without taking...."

 

[The Overlord]

Bill you can post all the links you want. But you still can't draw what a man looks like from his tooth.

If you found my tooth in a parking lot, you'd still have no idea what I look like. This is simply the result of an over-active imagination and the hope that there is no creator.

Your still avoiding the main issue, how do we test the creationist theory?

 

[Bill]

Bill you can post all the links you want. But you still can't draw what a man looks like from his tooth.

If you found my tooth in a parking lot, you'd still have no idea what I look like. This is simply the result of an over-active imagination and the hope that there is no creator.

And that link explained that. You didn't read it at all. Scientists never fully accepted the tooth or the illustration. It was never used as proof or evidence of any kind and was publicly retracted. Read the link. I posted it again, so that others can see what you obviously missed if you continue to post that Nebraska Man was held in any regard at all by science. This issue was settled shortly after it's find over 85 years ago. This is how far behind the curve you are in your knowledge, or, rather, the knowledge you're borrowing from some creationist web site.

 

[Bill]

Your still avoiding the main issue, how do we test the creationist theory?

I doubt he can define the creationist "theory", much less explain how it can be tested. He certainly doesn't know much about science or evolution.

 

[logansoldcigar]

I can describe creationist (ID) theory:

Scientist: "We have gathered to gether evidence to suggest that man evolved along this path, but are missing on piece of the jigsaw, therefore we shall call this the theory of evolution. we have tested and reviewed our findings so far."

Creation Scientist "BUGGER. that throws a spanner in the works. OOOOOO I know.....We have gathered together evidence to suggest that man evolved along this path, but are missing on piece of the jigsaw, therefore we shall call this the theory of Intelligent design. Cos God did the bit that was missing. the other bloke has tested and reviewed our findings so far. Except the bit that god did. Can we teach this instead of his theory please?"

Jaguaar "We have gathered to gether evidence to suggest that man evolved along this path, but are missing on piece of the jigsaw. The big spaghetti monstor did that. therefore we shall call this the theory of evolution. we have tested and reviewed our findings so far.except the bit the big spaghetti monster did"

Creation Scientist" HAHAHAHAHA thats stupid, who is gonna believe in that? a spaghetti monster. how funny. please prove it exists"

 

[etrigan69]

Why do people want to use junk science to try and prove what is supposed to be all about faith anyway? If you need science to prove God for you than you don't really believe in God yourself........

 

[Danalys]

I can describe creationist (ID) theory:

Scientist: "We have gathered to gether evidence to suggest that man evolved along this path, but are missing on piece of the jigsaw, therefore we shall call this the theory of evolution. we have tested and reviewed our findings so far."

Creation Scientist "BUGGER. that throws a spanner in the works. OOOOOO I know.....We have gathered together evidence to suggest that man evolved along this path, but are missing on piece of the jigsaw, therefore we shall call this the theory of Intelligent design. Cos God did the bit that was missing. the other bloke has tested and reviewed our findings so far. Except the bit that god did. Can we teach this instead of his theory please?"

Jaguaar "We have gathered to gether evidence to suggest that man evolved along this path, but are missing on piece of the jigsaw. The big spaghetti monstor did that. therefore we shall call this the theory of evolution. we have tested and reviewed our findings so far.except the bit the big spaghetti monster did"

Creation Scientist" HAHAHAHAHA thats stupid, who is gonna believe in that? a spaghetti monster. how funny. please prove it exists"

we all know that the speghetti monster changes all the results of investigation and experimentation to make it apear that evolution is actually the case. it requires a deeper understanding to come to the noodly one.

 

[celldog]

And that link explained that. You didn't read it at all. Scientists never fully accepted the tooth or the illustration. It was never used as proof or evidence of any kind and was publicly retracted. Read the link. I posted it again, so that others can see what you obviously missed if you continue to post that Nebraska Man was held in any regard at all by science. This issue was settled shortly after it's find over 85 years ago. This is how far behind the curve you are in your knowledge, or, rather, the knowledge you're borrowing from some creationist web site.

Nebraska man is just one more in a long line of "hopeful" monsters.

Java Man
Peking Man
Piltdown Man

All of them have been found to be frauds. As far as the whole scientific community not fully embracing Nebraska man, big deal. There were enough. Plus, you never get full agreement on anything. This is no different.

The fact remains, Billy, the missing link has never been found....and never will. Why? Because there never was an ape-man. Except in the fertile imaginations who just don't want to accept an intelligent designer. That scares you.

 

[Danalys]

it's what the large majority thinks that's important and the large majority of scientists have been skeptical and modest. not wishing to trumpet claims before they have been investigated fully.

 

[Bill]

Nebraska man is just one more in a long line of "hopeful" monsters.

Java Man
Peking Man
Piltdown Man

All of them have been found to be frauds. As far as the whole scientific community not fully embracing Nebraska man, big deal. There were enough. Plus, you never get full agreement on anything. This is no different.

The fact remains, Billy, the missing link has never been found....and never will. Why? Because there never was an ape-man. Except in the fertile imaginations who just don't want to accept an intelligent designer. That scares you.

Nebraska Man, if you had actually read the link, was never fully accepted by the scientific community at all. Not even enough, unless you count the one who found it as "enough." And it wasn't a fraud. Fraud implies dishonesty. The man made a mistake, and scientists corrected it. And there is full agreement that the tooth was misread. Of course, you would know all of this if you had read the link.

Piltdown Man was a hoax, and while it took a while to correct, it was corrected and is no longer held to be true by anyone.

Peking Man is still up in the air, you can actually learn more about it here, if you care to learn anything at all. And it includes a refutation of Creationist arguments against it here. Again, if you care to read it.

Java Man is also being considered. Learn more about it here. And the creationist arguments against it here. Both Creationist Argument links give you a chance, with references, to see just how dishonest Creationists can be when arguing their dogma.

The beauty of this is that when science makes a mistake, it will admit to it and correct that mistake. Look up Paluxy Man, Calaveras Skull, Moab and Malachite Man and see if Creationists are able to spot their own hoaxes and correct them as such.


The only thing that scares me, at this point, is the appalling lack of science knowledge on your part. I'm also "scared" of your inability to do proper research. Another thing that frightens me is that you have a problem with admitting your errors. And finally, I am absolutely terrified for your progeny, who I hope will one day be far more apt to learn and grow intellectually once they leave your sphere of influence. :shudders:

 

[Danalys]

sheesh there's still chance for him as it is. really it's about knowing when you're not informed enough to be certain of your position.

 

[lazur]

Every theory or fact can be smashed with one simple question: Why?

No matter how much you may lean on science as an explanation for all of your beliefs (or to refute the beliefs of others), the question of WHY it works the way it works will always overshadow any available explanation.

WHY does gravity exist? Since it does exist, WHY does it work the way it works? Why doesn't it work in reverse? For example, why isn't gravity greater with smaller objects instead of larger? Or why does it exist at all?

Can you really make any conclusions OTHER than "well, the larger the object, the greater the force of gravity it produces because of how much more mass it contains"? That all crumbles under the question of WHY. We CREATED that explanation based on the way it appears to work to us. If it worked differently, there'd be a different scientific explanation, no? The real question is - WHY does mass create gravity?

Why does heat burn and why does cold freeze? Why not the reverse? Why is something slippery as opposed to sticky? What if the colder something got, the softer it became and what if the hotter something got, the harder it became? Doesn't make sense, right? But if things worked that way in reality, it certainly would make sense, wouldn't it?

Aren't we merely subjects to a reality as it exists in the here and now? Well who decides how our reality works? Why does it work a certain way and not another way?

Do you know that scientists and doctors STILL to this day do not understand why something actually lives? Sure, they can explain all of the biological functions of a body, but they do not understand, nor can it be explained, WHY those biological functions actually make sense and work. Do you realize that if we were to ever fully understand WHY life works, we'd be able to revive the dead? Think about it.

Yet, we're going to sit here with all of our boldness and ignorance and question the beliefs of others when we ourselves haven't a clue? How can anyone sit here and pretend to know anything when the most BASIC questions of WHY cannot be answered, despite all of our knowledge and technology.

Why does a bird fly? Because it has wings? Why does it have wings? Because it evolved that way? Why did it, and not other animals, evolve to have wings? Why did some animals evolve to grow gills and breathe water? Why are humans, and not apes or dolphins, the most intelligent beings on the planet, yet the ones less able to live in harmony with the rest of its inhabitants, or with each other?

Sure, we can answer these questions the way we might peel away the different layers of an onion. But when it gets right to the core and there's nothing left to peel back, there is still a question of WHY. And at that core, I believe, is something far greater than we can comprehend.

Science can only explain the LAYERS - not what's underneath, pulling the strings, causing those layers to stack up.

The question of where we came from can be answered in two ways, imo. We either came from something or we came from nothing.

I have a hard time believing that we came from nothing. That we, and the rest of the universe, just sprouted out of nowhere for no reason at all. That's incomprehensible to me.

But what is comprehensible, at least to me, even if I don't fully grasp it, is that there's something we can't begin to understand at work. Who knows if we'll ever understand it. My guess is that we won't.

 

[Danalys]

the philosophical answer is "because." things have to be one way. i think the infinite way. all or nothing.

 

[lazur]

the philosophical answer is "because." things have to be one way. i think the infinite way. all or nothing.

Or it could be that everything works the way it works for the benefit of the existance of life as we know it. If it didn't work the way it does, life as we know it could not exist. Therefore, one could speculate that a 'higher power' causes things to work the way they work so that life can exist in a certain way.

For example, if gravity didn't work the way it does, life couldn't exist the way it exists now. Maybe we'd all be floating in space, but able to live somehow without oxygen. Who knows, maybe we're just one experiment in a grand zoo of experiments and, somewhere in the universe, is a life form, and maybe it's also intelligent, that can live in space without oxygen. Maybe that's a different experiment, and maybe to that life form, all of life is that way and it knows nothing of our existance and that, for us, we live on a big round object with oxygen instead of in space. Maybe to that particular life form, oxygen is lethal.

Or maybe that's just silly and whomever or whatever created biological life realized that for this experiment to work, other things had to be created to sustain us. Much in the way one might set up a terrarium for a reptile, an environment was set up for us.

Think outside the box.

 

[Maxwell Smart]

Why do people want to use junk science to try and prove what is supposed to be all about faith anyway? If you need science to prove God for you than you don't really believe in God yourself........

THANK YOU! Exactly. If it was provable, it wouldn't be called "faith". This whole discussion is just silly.

 

[Danalys]

take your own advice, lazur.

 

[lazur]

take your own advice, lazur.

Way to be constructive .

 

[Maxwell Smart]

lazur your "Why?" argument sounds like a rehash of "well because it all works that PROVES there must be a God". NO, it doesn't. If it didn't work, it wouldn't exist.

 

[lazur]

lazur your "Why?" argument sounds like a rehash of "well because it all works that PROVES there must be a God". NO, it doesn't. If it didn't work, it wouldn't exist.

Or it would exist with different rules.

 

[Maxwell Smart]

Or it would exist with different rules.

Well of course! I'm saying in order for it to exist it would ALWAYS work within it's set of rules, no matter what they were. It doesn't prove anything.

 

[Man-Thing]

I don't really believe that their are truly athiest in the world (that have atleast a miniscule amount of intelligence anyway), for the simple reasone that nothing that exists can bring itself into existance. This is why I give more credence to deist over an "athiest" for being a little more critical in their thinking.

 

[Danalys]

yet here i am not imagining something way out of all experience to fill the gaps.

 

[Bill]

lazur your "Why?" argument sounds like a rehash of "well because it all works that PROVES there must be a God". NO, it doesn't. If it didn't work, it wouldn't exist.

He basically posted a long winded version of an Argument from Incredulity. "Gee, I just don't get how "A" coulda happened and I can't understand anyone's explanation of "A", therefore it must be from (insert Deity here).