This should stir things up! Haven't finished reading it. Thought some of you would get a kick out of it. I'm especially interested in listining to what Alan F. has to say about it. Let us know what you think.
http://www.themythofevolution.com/Site/Myth%20of%20Evolution.html
The Myth Of Evolution
by whereami 26 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
whereami
-
greendawn
It's a good analysis but not all creationists believe that the earth is only 10 000 years old. The ones that do are the young earth creationists (YECs). There are some good points such as the missing links which is very hard for evolutionists to account for.
Evolution, the trinity and the 607 date are for ever very popular on this forum.
-
aniron
Evolution is stupid
-
RAF
So From one point (resumed at it maximum) :
Bible statement God the essence of everything with a spirit began to create at its maturity (by its Christ = maturity).
Forget about the Genesis account it's a story to make it short and understandable for people back then.
it's like everything had the potential to exist but just wasn't ready when not ready ...Science statementA cell (I call it like that its simple) began to evolve since it had a chance to means somehow at its maturity (ready to).
But here we have a probleme with missing material (as potentially from one cell) to build everything and moreover when you have to take this in consideration with missinglinks (means no proof) to lead from a point to another in beetween species.What's in RED here means the same actually …
-
daystar
I've been thinking around this subject recently. Isn't the idea that by living a certain way, doing certain things, one will somehow ascend to become this higher level of being called an angel... evolution?
By the same token, assuming evolution as fact (or working theory), what sort of beings would a human evolve into? There are cascading degrees of all sorts of beings, creatures, we consider "lower" forms of life on earth. Why the assumption that there are no "higher" forms of life on earth already in existence? I mean, we are pretty fricken advanced beings, all things said. What would a being of the next real evolutionary step look like? How would they appear to us? As angels perhaps? Beings who have such an advanced understanding of nature and advanced... existence... that it is difficult for us to even perceive them?
How does a worm view man? Can it really even see us?
What is the chimpanzee, taught sign-language, introduced to all the scientific advances of man, but unable to truly understand them without historical, cultural, etc. context, if he returns to the forest? Is he a prophet having returned from visiting the city of angels?
Just thoughts... just thoughts... But I think that religion and science aim for the same goals, advancing the species (consciously or unconsciously) but just can't seem to stop arguing the specifics.
Such silly apes we are!
-
Burger Time
I support the Spaghetti Monster Theory! It's just as good as any Creation theory just listen to this open Letter to the Kansas Education Board!
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Open Letter To Kansas School Board
I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.
Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.
I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
Sincerely Yours,
Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.
P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.
About Subpages
Back to About </form> -
Shawn10538
Of course, evolution does not fit the definition of myth. You can say that it is wrong, a bad theory, but it is not a myth. Now, God may well be a myth, and that does fit the definition of myth - pure fantasy, made up from nothing, based on no evidence but a crazy notion that we can't have come from an accident or chance but an invisible man must have put us here that we've never spoken to or seen. That isn't to say that God does not exist, but it MAY BE A MYTH FOR ALL WE KNOW. I believe in the Santa Claus cult myself. We have an abundance of evidence that Sana Claus exists. Every year thousands of people report seeing and even talking to and sharing cookies and milk with Santa Claus. He has been seen in the skies by multiple disparate sources who verify seeing the same thing. No such reports for "God" though. Clearly the bulk of evidence is more for Santa Claus than for "God", which we can't even come up with a consistent definition for.
The best argument against evolution is the one above who said "evolution is stupid." This is exactly the type and quality of the criticisms that come from the religious right. I don't think that person really knows that much about evolution. It just seems like an absurd notion to them. But God is an absurd notion to me. Still I don't say that creation is stupid. If we had evidence of creation - direct evidence, then I might believe it. But to say that design requires a designer, well that's just an assuption. For all we know, what seems to be a design, may not be at all, and even if it is a design, there is no universal LAW, that has proven that a design requires a designer. It is just an assumption. -
Shawn10538
Of course, evolution does not fit the definition of myth. You can say that it is wrong, a bad theory, but it is not a myth. Now, God may well be a myth, and that does fit the definition of myth - pure fantasy, made up from nothing, based on no evidence but a crazy notion that we can't have come from an accident or chance but an invisible man must have put us here that we've never spoken to or seen. That isn't to say that God does not exist, but it MAY BE A MYTH FOR ALL WE KNOW. I believe in the Santa Claus cult myself. We have an abundance of evidence that Sana Claus exists. Every year thousands of people report seeing and even talking to and sharing cookies and milk with Santa Claus. He has been seen in the skies by multiple disparate sources who verify seeing the same thing. No such reports for "God" though. Clearly the bulk of evidence is more for Santa Claus than for "God", which we can't even come up with a consistent definition for.
The best argument against evolution is the one above who said "evolution is stupid." This is exactly the type and quality of the criticisms that come from the religious right. I don't think that person really knows that much about evolution. It just seems like an absurd notion to them. But God is an absurd notion to me. Still I don't say that creation is stupid. If we had evidence of creation - direct evidence, then I might believe it. But to say that design requires a designer, well that's just an assuption. For all we know, what seems to be a design, may not be at all, and even if it is a design, there is no universal LAW, that has proven that a design requires a designer. It is just an assumption. -
AlanF
The linked article is typical of the worst genre of criticisms of evolution. It sounds much like the author is a newly minted young-earth creationist who has dumbly absorbed many of the myths of YECism. The author makes the usual stereotypcial misrepresentations and mistakes, and often dumbly repeats young-earth creationist errors that were debunked decades ago. Here are some examples:
Writing about the improbability of the eye evolving, the author misrepresents Darwin:
10) Eyes are far more complex than anything man can create . . . Chuck Darwin, the founder of the religion of evolution, didn't even believe eyes could have evolved:
"To suppose that the eye... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." -Charles Darwin, in 'The Origin of Species,' 1859, p. 217To show how these YECs often borrow misrepresentations from each, the above quotation is nearly identical to the same misrepresentation made by the Watchtower Society in its 1985 Creation book:
Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: "To suppose that the eye ... could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
These misrepresentative quotations of Darwin have been circulating in YEC literature for decades.
Both the linked author and the author of the Creation book misrepresented Darwin, because what he actually said was that, while it might be difficult to comprehend how the eye could have evolved, his theory could still account for it. A full quotation proves this (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859, p. 133):
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
The author claims that transitional forms do not exist, and makes some related but completely bogus statements:
Evolutionists also say that people, plants, and animals evolve into completely different things over time. If that’s true, we should find an abundance of evidence, transitional species all over the place, and someone in the history of science must have observed this happening. After all, with all the trillions of creatures that exist on this planet, at least one of them should be evolving right now!
Interestingly enough, that is a dead end as well. All the fish we find are fish, all the birds we find are birds, all the bats we find are bats, all the people we find are people, and single-celled organisms never reproduce into anything except single-celled organisms. There’s no transitional species to be found, and evolution (in the sense of organisms increasing in complexity) is not happening anywhere. In reality, if evolution were true, everything that is or was alive should just be another transitional species, including humans. There would be no point in classifying species, because they all would just be changing into something else continuously. But we find none of that.The simple fact is that a great many transitional forms have been found. A list of some can be found at the talkorigins website, in the "Transitional Fossils FAQ" and other writeups:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.htmlThe ancient birdlike creature Archaeopteryx is a fine example of a transitional form, i.e., a form that shares features of what are or have often been viewed as two major but distinct groups -- in this case dinosaurs and birds. While Archaeopteryx is classified as a bird because it has arms long enough to be wings, along with distinct flight feathers, a good many theropod dinosaur fossils exist from about the same time period that are extremely similar to Archaeopteryx except for arm length, and a good many birds exist from a couple of tens of millions of years later that become more and more like modern birds the more recent they are. And of course, in the past fifteen years a good many theropod dinosaur fossils have been found that show feathers or feather-like structures on these animals. Here is some information about this interesting creature:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-5-gulf-between-reptiles-and-birds.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArchaeopteryxUntil a recent discovery, the feet of Archaeopteryx were very poorly known because of poor fossil preservation. But the discovery of the most recent specimen, now on display at the Wyoming Dinosaur Center in Thermopolis, Wyoming, shows that it had a hyperextendible second toe similar to the killing toe on the famous Velociraptor:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1201_051201_archaeopteryx.html
This, and other structures in this newest specimen, show beyond doubt that Archaeopteryx, and therefore birds in general, are physically related to the theropod dinosaurs. A display of a variety of small theropods alongside ancient birds and Archaeopteryx proves that they're so similar that it takes an expert to distinguish one from another. One early Archaeopteryx specimen was misidentified as a small dinosaur and languished in a museum drawer for the better part of a century.
The linked author says that, "with all the trillions of creatures that exist on this planet, at least one of them should be evolving right now!" This is a ridiculous statement on its face, since individual creatures do not evolve -- populations evolve over time.
The author says that, "if evolution were true, everything that is or was alive should just be another transitional species, including humans." Well that's exactly right, in evolutionary terms, since the evolution of populations is a continuous process with no distinct beginning or end point (except in the case of extinction). The existence of ring species is a good example of how this works in the modern world ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species ) and shows how stupid it is to claim that transitional species do not exist.
The author states:
6) Transitional species required for the theory of evolution to be true are called “missing links,” instead of “links,” because they do not exist.
In view of the abundant evidence referred to above, showing that a great many transitional forms most certainly do exist, the author is outright lying.
The author states:
7) It is impossible for a cold blooded animal to give birth to a warm blooded animal; and yet this is believed by evolutionists in the fish to mammal and lizard to bird theories.
This is a ridiculous and transparent strawman argument. No evolutionist claims that cold blooded animals give birth to warm blooded animals, but that this transition -- as yet unknown in detail because the required soft structures are not normally preserved in the fossil record -- occurred gradually. Yet intermediate states exist even today. Some fish like the great white shark and bluefin tuna are partially warm blooded, maintaining their body core temperatures 5-10 degrees C above ambient. There is abundant evidence that many, if not all, later dinosaurs were warm blooded ( http://www.amonline.net.au/palaeontology/faqs/dinosaur.htm ). There is even evidence that dinosaurs had respiratory systems much like those of modern birds, as opposed to systems like reptiles and mammals ( http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/dino_lungs/ ), which is further evidence of the warm bloodedness of dinosaurs and the relation of birds to them.
In general, the author tries to argue that evolution is just a matter of faith and belief, rather than evidence. This ridiculous claim is yet another standard one from YECs, and is false on its face in view of the massive amount of scientific evidence published for 150 years on the subject.
The author is hypocritical as well, since it is obvious that he would strenuously object to saying of his Christian faith: "because it is based on unprovable belief, yet again, it becomes again faith-based, and coincidentally is fundamentally flawed." Yet he uses this argument to argue against the efficacy of Carbon-14 dating methods.
I could go on, but as I said, the entire article is nothing more than recycled and thoroughly debunked YEC claims, so I won't.
AlanF
-
JCanon
Of course, evolution does not fit the definition of myth. You can say that it is wrong, a bad theory, but it is not a myth. Now, God may well be a myth, and that does fit the definition of myth - pure fantasy, made up from nothing, based on no evidence but a crazy notion that we can't have come from an accident or chance but an invisible man must have put us here that we've never spoken to or seen.
Hi Shaun. There's a new twist to this now though. That is, what about people who believe they have actually seen angels or talked to God (like me), or the anointed of JWs who believe they have evidence of "holy spirit" in action? To us, God is more evident beyond the scriptures. Therefore, the absence of evidence of an invisible god argument doesn't work any more, not since 1947 when things began to move more speedily toward the events prophesied related to the second coming. I won't put myself into this scenario but the premise theoretically remains that some of the foundation for evolution is just as you present, the lack of evidence of God who is a myth to those he hasn't personally spoken to. And this is not to say you should listen to a single person claiming they have spoken to God or seen angels, but that for those those believe they have, when they look at evolution, there is little to contradict their supernatural experience. Why not? Because evolution does well in a mythological setting for any God, but once that God appears then evolution becomes a myth entirely.
But I will add this, after some recent discussion with some evolutionists. That I believe some aspects used as a basis for evolution is relevant, that is, relevant beyond say the JW strict dismissal. Thus even I'm more of an "evolutionist" now than before, based directly upon evidence showing adaptation of species to the environment. These are the evolutionary arguments about viruses and some animals that show special adaptation to their environment that can't be denied. At the same time, I believe that is entirely within the Biblical setting because obviously Jehovah had to do quite a bit of species adaptation after the flood. Birds had to start migrating, bears had to hybernate and everything had to get used to rain. Apparently animals were complete vegetarians before, right? Yet clearly predatory species had to adapt. So I'm open to the idea that Jehovah had to make some adjustments in the predeluvian animal species. That works for me. But evolutionists want to take this to the jump-species level where the "adaptation" was so extreme and complete that a completely new and unconnected "species" evolved. That's where I draw the line though
Even so, the standard piggy-back pro-evolution argument onto the mysteries and lack of evidence of any God is one topic that has to drop off the pro-evolution list of key points because we are seeing more and more direct evidence of God's involvement and will so as Armageddon rapidly approaches. But this, of course, first happens more among his true followers before any great demonstration is seen in the world at large.
JCanon
