Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
could you spend the winter out side.
Topic Started: May 18 2009, 10:23 PM (947 Views)
the breeze
No Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
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.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Quote:
 
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.

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!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

We could have a can you top this contest! Just kidding.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
ngc1514
May 19 2009, 03:11 AM
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?
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Mike, all you ever do is make assertions. Then ask everyone to disprove your assertions. The burden of proof is on you.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
Chris
May 19 2009, 06:50 AM
Mike, all you ever do is make assertions. Then ask everyone to disprove your assertions. The burden of proof is on you.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
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.

Quote:
 
EVOLUTION-CONGRESS Sep-16-2008 (430 words) xxxi

Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design

By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Speakers invited to attend a Vatican-sponsored congress on the evolution debate will not include proponents of creationism and intelligent design, organizers said.

The Pontifical Council for Culture, Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University and the University of Notre Dame in Indiana are organizing an international conference in Rome March 3-7 as one of a series of events marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, told Catholic News Service Sept. 16 that organizers "wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific" and that discussed rational philosophy and theology along with the latest scientific discoveries.

He said arguments "that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite" supporters of creationism and intelligent design.

Father Leclerc was one of several organizers speaking at a Sept. 16 Vatican press conference about the congress, part of the culture council's "Science, Technology and the Ontological Quest," or STOQ project.

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the other extreme of the evolution debate -- proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection -- also were not invited.

He reiterated that evolutionary theory "is not incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church or the Bible's message."

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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · RV AND CAMPING DISCUSSION · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis