| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| could you spend the winter out side. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 18 2009, 10:23 PM (945 Views) | |
| the breeze | May 18 2009, 10:23 PM Post #1 |
the breeze
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Could You Spend Winter Outside? Monday, May 18, 2009 12:00 PM Psalm 104:27-28: "These all wait for You, that You may give them their food in due season. What You give them they gather in; You open Your hand, they are filled with good." Popular science magazines and school textbooks have, for more than a century now, repeated the theme that mankind evolved from the animal kingdom. Have you ever stopped to think what this means? Those of us who live where the winters are very cold know fully well that human beings could not survive outside as the animals do. We need the protection of clothes and shelter, but the Creator has provided for the winter needs of the animal kingdom. Dogs for example, if living outside, develop a thicker coat in winter. Does human body hair become thicker under cold conditions? Not at all. Many animals store fat to carry them through the winter, and their metabolic rate slows down so that they require less food. The fat they store and their metabolism are carefully coordinated and are often very different even between males and females of the same species. The bottom line is that the animals survive the winter and finish up in the springtime looking sleek and trim. Just the reverse usually happens in the case of man. We tend to eat more in winter, and in springtime often have the waistline to show for it! If human beings had evolved from the animals, we would expect a much greater similarity between how animals and humans cope with winter. No, human beings never have been part of the animal kingdom. Prayer: Dear Father, You care and provide for all Your creatures. Grant seasonable weather this winter for the good of the Earth and all living things as well as for the productivity of the soil next growing season. In Jesus' Name. Amen. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | May 18 2009, 10:29 PM Post #2 |
|
Deleted User
|
"Those of us who live where the winters are very cold know fully well that human beings could not survive outside as the animals do." Not as human beings, but our ancestors, closer to animals could. In short, you';ve just provided one more evolutionary explanation. That is the power of evolutionary theory, to explain what was once inexplicable about human nature. And you continue to offer more evidence when you argue "If human beings had evolved from the animals, we would expect a much greater similarity between how animals and humans cope with winter. No, human beings never have been part of the animal kingdom." For as we evolved we learned to make tools and clothes and shelter and, eventually, heating and air conditioning. Oh, when I say "you", I should actually say the author, since you say nothing for yourself. |
|
|
| ngc1514 | May 18 2009, 10:42 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Only a valid argument if you can prove that EVERY animal would be capable of coping with winter. Obviousl there are far more animal species not capable and this silly argument collapses. It also ignores that man apparently evolved in near equatorial Africa (Afar is about Lat 14 degrees N) and had no need to survive cold winters. As Chris noted - another piece of evidence for evolution. In your ever lengthening list of really stupid arguments... this one needs to be near the top! |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | May 18 2009, 10:50 PM Post #4 |
|
Deleted User
|
We could have a can you top this contest! Just kidding. |
|
|
| Mike | May 19 2009, 02:39 AM Post #5 |
|
Administrator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think this example disproves evolutionary theory. For the most part all human beings require clothing and other means of protection that the animal kingdom does not, yet there are regions on the planet where there would never have been a reason to evolve in order to avoid a harsh climate. |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 19 2009, 03:11 AM Post #6 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sorry Padre, but it doesn't. Hominids evolved a few million years ago in the hot East African areas like Afar and the Olduvai Gorge. People living there today don't wear much in the way of clothing. Man's introduction to cold weather probably didn't start until 100,000 years ago or so when he pushed into some of the colder climes or - as in the case of Ice Ages - when the colder climes came to him. There is no where near enough time for man to have evolved from a naked, warm blooded creature to one that evolved for the Alaskan tundra. Instead he used technology to adapt. That *is* what makes us human, you know. You might do some reading about the work of the Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Theologian AND paleontologist, he was a major force in the field during the early 20th century. He was involved with the discovery of Peking Man (Homo erectus pekinensis) - one of Homo sapiens early relatives about half a million years ago. There is also some suspicion he was peripheral to the Piltdown Man hoax. Anyway... if man adapted to cold climates were ever found, it would be a serious blow AGAINST evolution, not something predicted by the theory. We evolved from warm climate precursors and became warm climate humans; something we remain to this day. Only technology allows us to live in cold weather climates - exactly as expected through evolutionary theory. Are you going to suggest that because man can't live in the ocean like the cetaceans, but need technology to spend more than a few minutes underwater, that is evidence against evolution as well? |
![]() |
|
| Mike | May 19 2009, 06:27 AM Post #7 |
|
Administrator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I disagree. God created man. However if you would like to provide me with proof to the contrary, then I'll see what you have to offer. And please don't include any theories. If you are going to disprove something in scientific terms then do as a scientist would. Irrefutable proof. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | May 19 2009, 06:50 AM Post #8 |
|
Deleted User
|
Mike, all you ever do is make assertions. Then ask everyone to disprove your assertions. The burden of proof is on you. |
|
|
| Mike | May 19 2009, 07:07 AM Post #9 |
|
Administrator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No it isn't Chris. The issue seems to be whether a man evolved or is a separate species. From the arguments I read, it was suggested that man evolved. I haven't seen a shred of proof that irrefutably proves that point. Now if you are arguing that man is a result of evolution, then show me the proof. |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 19 2009, 07:28 AM Post #10 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"Irrefutably prove" is not science but math. TRVTH is not science. All one can do is to look at the evidence amassed over the last hundred and fifty years and see what looks the most probable. As I've said before, your own church supports evolution as not being incompatible with church dogma.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804713.htm You need to keep up with the teachings of your church, Padre. Why do you think creationists and intelligent designers were being left off the guest list? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · RV AND CAMPING DISCUSSION · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





12:41 AM Jul 14
