by Sam87 537 Replies latest jw friends
"Religion" is a catch-all generalized label like "apostate" or "evolutionist". Believers are implied as part and parcel to the mild epithet "religion" while religion is only a formulaic system of expression for belief. Believers may or may not have "all the answers", and a given religion may or may not have "all the answers". It is certain that Buddhists do not claim to have all the answers, for instance.
Point taken. Thanks, Dude. ;-)
Dave
Okay! I lied. I'm back.
I have to say that I agree with DIDO 100% on her observation that evolutionists are dogmatic about it. Let's face it. Creation is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Niether can be proven, because no one alive today was there. Trying to inter-mix them doesn't make any sense either, because they always end up separating from each other. Like oil and water.
You see it on TV and in children's science books, etc.... all the time. In essence: Here's a horseshoe crab. It is one of our ancestors from millions of years ago. Really? That is a scientific discovery that can be proven? A long-winded complicated discussion usually follows with all kinds of really interesting life-like pictures drawn by a very talented artist. All kinds of charts. Book after book written ont he subject. But no actual physical evidence. No horseshoe crab fossil with fingers and toes. No mermaid fossil. Nothing to show any kind of evolution of one thing turning into another. The fossils of men that they thought were some kind of sub-human species ended up being a human with some kind of disease that malformed them, such as a really bad case of rickets. The DNA info. given earlier to show how related we are to apes was an interesting reach, but our DNA matches that of a pig as well. The medical field has used pig organs and skin for transplants in humans. Yes, we both have skin, blood, similar organs. Yet, with all this in common, I've never heard of anyone marrying a pig and having pig-children with it. It would seem a possibility if we are that closely related.
I'm sure the insistant evolutionists will now bombard me with a bunch of websites that prove this or that, let me know that I'm not a brilliant mind, so I should not be in this conversation, etc..... I could pop off many web sites that support the creation point of view, just as the evolution supporters have been doing. I am a Bible-believing Christian, so of course, I am going to have a certain amount of bias toward the Biblical view of creation. I believe it is ignored by most and deserves to be considered.
If you are a devout skeptic, then you will want to accept evolution as true, since a mental hiding place is needed. Evolution provides that hiding place. You want to argue your position and ideas, but refuse to listen or consider anything that shows evolution to be untrue. It is evident in the attacks that you have displayed upon the people who do not agree with you or find the articles you provide as convincing as you yourself do. It's a bunch of people making elaborate guesses. It's not proof.
To say that evolution is not a religious belief is not accurate. It takes just as much faith to believe evolution as it does to believe in a creator. My point of being here on this discussion, is that there are going to be unbiased people who are not on either side of the fence. They are straddling the middle. I'm encouraging them to look at both sides of the issue and hoping they won't automatically lean toward evolution, since that is the one we are all bombarded with from birth. Creation is equally convincing, if not more so. However, if you rely soley on biased resources that don't even consider creation as a possibility, you are cheating yourself.
I've never yet found any convincing evidence that a fossil has proven to be a man-ape cross of some kind. There have been frauds who have tried to fuse the two together, but they were found out. You don't hear about the charade. You only hear about the "new" discovery.
An ape is still going to be an ape. A human is going to be a human. A plant is going to be a plant. A horseshoe crab is going to be a horseshoe crab. That's what has been proven.
Complicated relgion is not of God. Evolution is a complicated religion. It's a bunch of books, drawings, and far reaching thought processes that have a preconcieved agenda. They struggle to make things fit. It may sound convincing at times, but it's really just as much of a fantasy land as the evolutionists claim the Bible to be.
TopHat:
OH MYYYYYYYYYY HERE WE GO AGAIN!! If you don't believe in evolution then you'er ignorant...OH PLEASEEEEEEEEEE!!! BORRRRRRING
At the very least, if you don't understand evolution, you are ignorant of the theory of evolution and what "evolutionists" believe - which is a huge impediment when having a discussion about the subject of evolution.
If you find it boring I suggest you post on another thread, one you find more interesting.
whyizit:
You should have stuck to your guns. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool...
Trying to inter-mix them doesn't make any sense either, because they always end up separating from each other.
It is possible to construct a theoretical model that includes both a creator and a system of life that gradually or rapidly evolves.
Now whether that model is correct - there's the argument
You are possibly about to be hung, drawn and quartered whyizit as there are gaping holes I can see, with wind blowing straight through them, and posters like Abaddon will exploit those vulnerabilities.
Its a merry old dance, and then you die.
Abbadon- first of all i don`t have a chip on my shoulder, i think it`s the other way round, you have a very condescending attitude, i just can`t suffer fools gladly! It`s not a case of talking in `kiddy terms` I just like to keep things simple, then everyone can understand what i am trying to say.
Bacteria, is that all you can come up with? That`s nothing new, been around since time indefinate.
Periods, most women i know are glad to have a break from sex as they are usually in pain or feel under the weather,i don`t condemn all men, just inconsiderate ones!
The reason i commented on here was to say that i believed in creation, not to get into a debate about all the theories about evolution, i was asked for my opinion, and gave it!
I've never yet found any convincing evidence that a fossil has proven to be a man-ape cross of some kind.
What would it take to convince you? If you found a skull with ape-like characteristics, and human-like characteristics, a combination of which doesn't exist in any living ape or human, what would that be?
Such skulls have been found. Hundreds of them. What are they?
I understand your position, WhyIzIt, I really do. I held it for 20 years. It seems REALLY reasonable to you, as it did to me.
Here's a simple puzzle that the Bible account of creation can't explain. Certain flowers require certain bugs or birds in order to polinate. Without them, they would die off in a generation. Yet the Bible says plants were created on one "day", and flying creatures on another. How were these plants polinated prior to the flying creatures' creation?
Evolution says these dependencies developed slowly over time, so it is not a problem from that standpoint. But creation says things popped into existence as they are.
Do you feel the Bible's creation account has an answer for this?
Dave
Funkyderek-
`If you find it boring i suggest you post on another thread` Hallooooo- the question is evolution OR creation, we are discussing both, so if we choose to support creation, we can, and we don`t have to get bogged down with all these evolution theories. How would you like it if i kept quoting bible refernces to back up creation?
You see it on TV and in children's science books, etc.... all the time. In essence: Here's a horseshoe crab. It is one of our ancestors from millions of years ago. Really? That is a scientific discovery that can be proven? A long-winded complicated discussion usually follows with all kinds of really interesting life-like pictures drawn by a very talented artist. All kinds of charts. Book after book written ont he subject. But no actual physical evidence. No horseshoe crab fossil with fingers and toes. No mermaid fossil. Nothing to show any kind of evolution of one thing turning into another. The fossils of men that they thought were some kind of sub-human species ended up being a human with some kind of disease that malformed them, such as a really bad case of rickets. The DNA info. given earlier to show how related we are to apes was an interesting reach, but our DNA matches that of a pig as well. The medical field has used pig organs and skin for transplants in humans. Yes, we both have skin, blood, similar organs. Yet, with all this in common, I've never heard of anyone marrying a pig and having pig-children with it. It would seem a possibility if we are that closely related.
I am so flat out floored by the absurdity of that post that I don't even know where to start.
"I've never yet found any convincing evidence that a fossil has proven to be a man-ape cross of some kind. There have been frauds who have tried to fuse the two together, but they were found out. You don't hear about the charade. You only hear about the "new" discovery. An ape is still going to be an ape. A human is going to be a human. A plant is going to be a plant. A horseshoe crab is going to be a horseshoe crab. That's what has been proven."
And what exactly is your point? Not a single word in that sentence offers any evidence against evolutionary theory. What "frauds" are you referring to? The infamous "piltdown" episode that the Watchtower trots out as proof against evolution? Have you got anymore because I would be interested in you providing the published references to these events or at the very least some real evidence for your outlandish conspiracy claims, otherwise, you are talking out of your ass, like most creationists. "An ape is still going to be an ape". Yup. Probably true. But I wonder how you account for the fact that anatomically apes and humans share virtually the same skeletal structures? That we share over 95% of our genome with apes? Just a coincidence? I wonder why your god would "create" these proto-hominid animals with such stunning similarities to homo sapiens? Coincidence?
You claim that both "creation" and "evolution" represent "theories" ? Completely false! Do you understand the criteria for a "scientific theory"? A theory is a set of testable and falsifiable hypotheses, open to observation, replication and experimentation. Within the "theory" of evolution, many hypotheses have been put forth. They have been tested and replicated. Some have been falsified, some have been proven to be correct following rigorous replication and tangible experimentation. Do you think "creation", an ancient mythological story concocted 2000 years ago by wondering nomads in the desert represents this criteria? How does one perform an experiment as to whether or not some magical creature in the sky one day decided to create human beings in his little garden of eden? Do you think this "hypothesis" can be examined in any way shape or form, beyond the mythological writings of an ancient tribe 2000 years ago?
You think there are no transitional hominid forms in the fossil record? You just demonstrate your complete and utter ignorance of the field, phylogeny and anatomical evolution. The hominid fossil record is astoundingly complete, showing gradual evolutionary changes in hominoid form and function over millions of years. You just chose to ignore reality in your religious fantasy world. I wonder who is really being arrogant here, the petulant and superstitious ignoramuses who blindly insist on some spirit in the sky as being responsible for the existence of biological lifeforms on this planet, or the scientists, who devote 10-15 years of solid academic study, using empirical reasoning, experimentation and logic to arrive at conclusions regarding the true nature of biological existence and how it evolved on this planet?
The defensiveness of the "creationists" on this thread is laughable. As mountains of evidence is presented to quash silly superstitions and demonstrate unequivocally the reality of evolution, the best defense is " the evil scientists have a diabolical plot to destroy belief in god"....lol.....Just like the good old Watchtower and Awake used to tell us, eh? Ah good old anti-intellectualism, the modus operandi of the Watchtower. Sadly, so many ex-JWs cant seem to shake this disease and blissfully choose to exist in the glass bubble of superstitious mythology..............
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2cHumanevop2.shtml
How did humans evolve? Here are some of the important events in human history, with approximate dates, which reflect the evidence currently available: |  | ||||||||
 | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Hallooooo- the question is evolution OR creation, we are discussing both, so if we choose to support creation, we can, and we don`t have to get bogged down with all these evolution theories.
LMAOROFL!!!!! Priceless!! So let me get this straight, we are debating evolution vs. creation but we cant discuss the theory or evidence for evolution??? But if we choose to "support" creation, WE CAN!!!! LOL! Oh my.....not the sharpest tool in the shed, are ya? Nonetheless, provides a nice summary of the intellectual rigour one typically finds on the pro-creation side of the equation!
