Evolution or creation.....

by searching4? 81 Replies latest jw experiences

  • FairMind
    FairMind

    (Jude 18-19) . . .: "In the last time there will be ridiculers, proceeding according to their own desires for ungodly things." 19 These are the ones that make separations, animalistic [men], not having spirituality.

    (Romans 1:20-23) 20

    For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. 22 Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things.

    Food for thought.

  • Midget-Sasquatch
    Midget-Sasquatch

    Alright, I should have expected that quote from Jude with my last post. I was having fun near the end.

    In earnestness: Did the creator god spoken of in Romans also create malaria? This parasite requires to be in humans for one part of its life cycle. Or what about another human parasite Entamoeba histolytica? It can sometimes burrow through the digestive tract, get into the bloodstream and travel to other organs where it can lead to death. Other parasites in nature have some rather morbid lifecycles. i.e. parasitic wasps. I really don't mind the latter at all. It helps keep down other bug populations. But why were the human parasites created? For the same practical function?

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    Sheepish:

    Just to throw some more into the mix. I know there is a God, cause he answers my prayers. I've seen undeniable evidence. (Sorry if you haven't) I've seen and experienced healings, provision and comfort. It wasn't just in my heart guys.

    If this evidence is really undeniable, you could become very rich if you take James Randi's challenge, or at the very least help lots of sick people. Unfortunately, I've seen people die from horrible diseases despite many people praying for them. Any idea why your god picks and chooses who he helps?

    Like the only time we ever ran out of food, and had just prayed a really simple prayer, "Lord, you know we are out of food, and we rely on you for our provision, we could sure use some food....amen"....and my husband opened the door, and a lady was walking towards us, arms laden with white plastic bags full of food, asking if we could use some food. (I will add we did not look poor, or hungry as we were neither, just out of food and money at the moment!).I got a lots of stories.

    So you weren't poor or hungry, you just had no food? And God sent a little old lady to bring you food? How nice! Glad to know nobody who prays will ever starve.

    I correspond with an athiest in Russia, of all places. He is a retired psychotherapist, and psychologist. Even he says they don't believe in the THEORY of evolution there.

    "Even he"? Even a pychotherapist and psychologist says that Russians (some, all, who knows?!) don't believe in a biological theory? Congratulations! I believe that that is the single worst example of an argument from authority I have ever seen.

    Why do you think it's called a theory.

    Because it is a model describing the behaviour of a natural phenomenon, because it has been widely tested and used to make accurate predictions. The fact that it is still useful a century and a half after Darwin came up with it is testament to its explanatory power. Why do you think it's called a theory?

    Even Darwin knew it had holes.

    Of course he did. The most obvious being that he wasn't aware of a discrete unit of heredity, without which his theory would have been unworkable. Fortunately Gregor Mendel's discovery of the gene lent powerful support to Darwin's theory.

    It's for people who don't want to face the fact they are answerable to a Sentient Being.

    So you think the tens of thousands of scientists, and hundreds of millions of other people who accept the fact of evolution do so because they want to hide from your god? What arrogant mindless nonsense you spout, Sheepish! Probably most people who realise evolution occurs also believe in some sort of god. What are they hiding from?

    If evolution, what really matters? We are animals evolving. The world is as it only can be.Who cares about the future?

    I do for one. I care about my own life and that of my future progeny - and to varying degrees, all life.

    There is no need for right and wrong.

    Of course there is. Why on earth would you believe otherwise?

    But if you corner an evolutionist, he wants justice and mercy like everyone else.

    You don't have to corner one. Everyone wants to be treated fairly, regardless of their beliefs on our origins. That says nothing about whether the universe is inherently fair. In fact it appears not to be. It appears in every testable way to be completely arbitrary.

    Why would you bother to even be on this site. You are simply evolving and there is no "seeking" baby, you're bound for the compost pile!

    Why don't you kill yourself now, and shed your earthly shell?

    You can denigrate the true origen of the species all you want, talking down to folks who know their Creator, but in the end you are left with a dying earth and no hope. How's that working out for you?

    Now we're getting to the real reason you believe. It's not because you actually think there's a big invisible man in the sky who grants your wishes, but because you're afraid of dying and are too weak-willed to face it.

    See how annoying it is when someone accuses you of believing something for ulterior motives. I, for one, believe what I am compelled to believe by the available evidence - real evidence, not your anecdotal kind - regardless of the consequences. It might be nice to have a fairy godfather who'll bring me food whenever I'm hungry but, in reality, I don't.

  • hooberus
    hooberus


    hooberus,
    Responses to many of these claims can be found in a variety of literature. For example, several of them are dealt with in the publication The Biotic Message.

    the self-published biotic message by ReMine, and the subsequent argument regarding Haldane's so-called dilemma, has been shown to be based upon erroneous assumptions. i don't think it's a good idea to post "replies" to the talk origins article by Theobald in the Biotic Message, if the Biotic Message, via Haldane's Dilemma has been shown to be erroneous.

    You seem to be saying that ReMine's book with all of its responses to various evolutionary claims (such as claims similar to those made by Theobald) found in it, should be dismissed as a resource if it is found to be in error on one of its subjects. I think that this is dismissive for a book of its length, debth, number of citations, etc.

    Furthermore, I don't think that you have shown it to be "erroneous" on Haldane's Dilemma .

    here is some material that may help in showing that The Biotic Message by ReMine should not be regarded as authoritative. ReMine himself, an electrical engineer, will only debate evolutionists when the moderators are creationists, and willing to modify and delete posts at will. here is an example: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/encounter_with_remine_rr.htm

    I haven't seen any statements from ReMine that he will "only" debate evolutionists "when the moderators are creationists", and "willing to modify and delete posts at will." Such an assertion is even contradicted on his site:

    "The debate essays are short, (limited to 1500 words each), and had two moderators (one from each side). The debate was held jointly on two opposing host websites: TCCSA and New Mexicans for Science and Reason. The debate featured Dave Thomas (evolutionist) versus Walter ReMine (Intelligent Design theorist), and took seven months, ending in April 2003. http://www1.minn.net/~science/discuss.htmThe

    here is the material i mentioned:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html

    This talkorigins material is itself "erroneous" : For example it errantly claims:

    ReMine (1993), who promotes the claim, makes several invalid assumptions. His model is contradicted by the following:

    • The vast majority of differences would probably be due to genetic drift, not selection.

    ReMine never made the "assumption" that the "majority" of changes would be due to selection.

    • Human and ape genes both would be diverging from the common ancestor, doubling the difference.

    ReMines example dealt with the maximum number of selective changes within a single line of inheritance (extint ape 10 mya to human), therefore no "doubling the difference" should have been done.

    ReMine has specifically addressed the points in the talkorigins material: http://www1.minn.net/~science/talk_origins.htm

    also. the following papers do serious damage to the various claims of creationists who say that because of Haldane's Dilemma, we cannot have shared a common ancestor with apes:

    J. C. Fay, G. J. Wyckoff and C.-I. Wu: Positive and Negative Selection on the Human Genome,Genetics 158, 1227-1234. 2001.

    and

    Sexual Recombination and the Power of Natural Selection


    William R. Rice* and Adam K. Chippindale 2001 Science 294:555-559

    I don't believe that these papers (sited by evolutionist Scott Page) do "serious damage to the various claims of creationists" I'll try to explain why shortly.

  • Cygnus
    Cygnus

    I'm reminded of George Carlin's routine:

    Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall

    Humpty Dumpty had a great fall

    All the king's horses and all the king's men

    Couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again

    Why? Cause there is no

    Humpty Dumpty

    And there is no god, not one, never has been. Goodnight, I hope you all had a wonderful time.

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    J. C. Fay, G. J. Wyckoff and C.-I. Wu: Positive and Negative Selection on the Human Genome,Genetics 158, 1227-1234. 2001.

    Some Evolutionists (ie: Scott Page) have implied that one of the (below) results of this study- a claimed "1 advantageous substitution every ~200 years since humans separated from old world monkeys 30 million years ago" has somehow falsified the Haldane population genetics calculated maximum "speed limit" of 1 beneficial substitution every 300 generations - every 6,000 years with a 20 year generation time.

    Therefore, a large proportion, 35%, of amino acid substitutions between humans and old world monkeys are estimated to have been driven by positive selection. Extrapolating this proportion to the total amount of coding DNA in the genome (~5 x 10 7 bp) yields an estimate of up to 1 advantageous substitution every ~200 years since humans separated from old world monkeys 30 million years ago ( L I 1997 ).
    http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/158/3/1227


    The problem with using this study is the fact that the above figure of "1 advantageous substitution every ~200 years since humans separated from old world monkeys 30 million years ago" appears to have been calculated in part by comparing the differences between humans and monkeys combined with the assumption to begin with that the evolution of humans and monkeys from a common ancestor had actually occurred within the specified amount of time (30 million years). For example the arcticle says:

    To estimate the fraction of DNA variation within and between species that has been under positive and negative selection we compare amino acid and synonymous polymorphism from two recent surveys of human DNA variation ( C ARGILL et al. 1999 ; H ALUSHKA et al. 1999 ) and from divergence between humans and old world monkeys.


    Thus, the problem of circularity arrises in that such an estimate was calculated with the assumption of the "fact" of evolution of humans from an ancient common ancestor with monkeys 30 mya to begin with. Therefore the resulting calculations of a "rate" of advantageous substitutions is not independant evidence against a mathematical population genetics speed limit alculation proposed to test this very thing.

    Fred Williams was the original person to point this out:
    "So what is the problem here? The authors of the genetics study are arriving at their estimate of 10 generations by first assuming that man and ape share a common ancestor. Their DNA sequence comparison work is based on this belief. If this assumption is not true, then their calculation is worthless. Haldane’s estimate of 300 generations per substitution is based on a mathematical model that need not rely on such assumptions of the validity of evolution.

    I doubt if the authors of the study would agree with Page that their estimate invalidates "Haldane’s Dilemma". If they did, it would be a classic case of circular reasoning: first assume man/ape shared ancestry is true, then arrive at an estimate that is based on this assumption, then conclude it refutes a mathematical model that contradicts the initial assumption of man/ape shared ancestry." http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/page_refutation.htm

    Unfortunately, Page never did seem to grasp the basic problem with using the above study as an attempted refutation of population genetics calculations limits for a proposed evolutionary scenario.

  • Seeker4
    Seeker4

    funkyderek: Thanks for dealing with that in such detail. Like someone said here recently - seems we have these discussions over and over, and it can get frustrating having to present the same facts over and over. You did a great job. S4

  • Sheepish
    Sheepish

    Funkyderek,

    Interesting embellishment of my experience with the lady, turning her into a "little old" lady. Nice imagery-but incorrect. You then ask ME why GOD picks and chooses...it might help if you think a little bit about the concept of GOD.

    There are thousands of scientists that believe in an intelligent designer...it is a valid premise, even if you don't agree.

    Your kind suggestion as to why I "don't kill myself and shed my earthly shell" shows me you know little of the Bible. Sorry, not fair to discuss this with an unarmed man.

    I understand you don't have a fairy Godfather to grant you "wishes", I don't either. But I do have a compassionate Father, who does what he does for me according to what will bring out the best end. That may not be what you understand as best, but then you are not God. I do hope you get to meet him though-you'll be very surprised to find out who he really is.

    The end of the matter is, "The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"

    So have the last word, and then I hope you have a great day!

  • finallyfree05
    finallyfree05

    Umm, I think that you are beautiful and that God ment to create you!

    So are you saying that you just happened? because if you did. Then Dam girl evelution did something right! Your hot! I like your humor. Are you married?

    I'm a girl but want to make new friends.. Would you be my friend?

    I'm finally free........ I'm like that little spring that has been held down for years and finally it was released and I just cant stop bouncing around. I'm free and everything is beautiful!

    If you want a friend and one to BEOW with write me back. I may to weird for everyone, but " I have nothin but love for ya baby!"

    Hugs,

    Freedom

  • kid-A
    kid-A

    So are you saying that you just happened? because if you did. Then Dam girl evelution did something right!

    Freedom, dang girl, thats one of the best pick-up lines I have ever heard!!! LOL

    Of course, we are ALL your friends here!!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit