and the rest of the story blah, blah, blah, blah, blah and so on and so forth.cbrown01.mp3
So is it Evolution or Creation
by Punk 85 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Awakened07
By all means - check both sides of the argument. As in reading what both sides have to say. Two of them. As in 2. Both. Not what one side has to say about the other. Both sides.
Did I say both sides?
Both sides.
Luckily, being brought up a Witness I've already covered the creationist / ID side, so I am now checking the other side's arguments. While I'm also staying up-to-date on the ID side.
Incidentally; you don't have to give up on a belief in God if you end up supporting evolution theory.
-
Superfine Apostate
BA, although you might think that a 6th finger per hand is irreducible, it's still a mutation. not necessarily one that is of benefit in our times, but in our times we pretty much control evolution.
-
funkyderek
Brother Apostate:
Giraffes necks, human eyes, and other items of irreducable complexity.
I don't think even the bumbling creationist simpleton hooberus was ever so out of touch as to describe the giraffe's neck as an example of irreducible complexity. The eye of course I can understand, and there are dozens of other organs and processes that you could easily throw out that at least require some explanation and perhaps a demonstration that while complex, they are not irreducibly so. But a long neck? If you weren't so consistent in your ignorance, I'd genuinely think you were making a joke. The giraffe's neck presents no difficulty whatsoever for an evolutionary worldview. It is like any other mammalian neck, only longer. It has the same number of bones as that of a mouse.
The eye of course, is an old favourite of creationists and as such the claim that it is irreducibly complex has been thoroughly debunked many many times. See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html for a jumping-off point.
The assumption that mutations will lead to the survival of the fittest, or that mutations in a population result in anything other than minor adaptions to the environment over time, have been shown to be in error
When and by whom have they been shown to be in error? Those beliefs are the cornerstone of modern biology and are supported by vast amounts of evidence. Who, apart from a few religious cranks, denies them at all?
If you believe that mutations can result in "minor adaptions to the environment over time" where do you believe the stopping point is? Presumably, you allow that mutations could result in the giraffe having a slightly longer neck. Why then, if selection pressure was sufficient, could it not gradually acquire a much longer neck ("much" being nothing more than a multiple of "slightly")? Given that the earth is nearly a million times older than you likely believe, could the adaptations not also be of a similarly larger magnitude to what you in your ignorance assume?
If you wish to understand both sides of the arguments for and against evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, intelligent design, etc, I'd recommend checking these sites periodically:
It clearly hasn't worked with you. But that's not surprising. Those sites really don't teach much about the facts of evolution at all, designed as they are to promote the ridiculous religious belief of creationism and it's respectable-sounding alias of "Intelligent Design Theory".
So, for anyone who's actually interested in learning about the scientific evidence for evolution, and not the crackpot theories of a handful of religious fanatics a good starting point is http://www.talkorigins.org
-
Brother Apostate
BA, although you might think that a 6th finger per hand is irreducible, it's still a mutation. not necessarily one that is of benefit in our times, but in our times we pretty much control evolution. Bad example of irreducable complexity. Try giraffe's neck, biochemistry of vision, blood clotting, cellular, gated, and vesicular transport, etc, etc
-
Superfine Apostate
well, apart from the old stuff that starts to get boring - just WHAT is irreducible in a giraffe's neck?
-
inkling
Mutation has never "creatednew things",
sigh... Nylon-eating bacteria anyone?
Yeah, little bugs that "invented" an brand new enzyme to break down NYLON, a man made substance.
It would seem that the designer has awoken from his 7th day slumber to make us a new bacterial pet!! I know I want one.
[inkling]
-
Brother Apostate
funkyderek,
The giraffe's neck and the inferred complexity of it appearing as it did, at once, rather than through random mutations, is covered in the article I embedded above, by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.
Now, I know that you can't handle your pet theory being debunked and rebutted, but it continues to be torn apart as we speak. In time it will be undeniable to all but the evangelicals such as yourself that evolution theory as currently taught is a myth.
Future generations will laugh at the ignorance of what evolution propenents believed.
But mock and derision is a sure sign of close-mindedness, fd.
TalkOrigins is indeed a good site to hear the pro-evolution propaganda. I check it regularly to keep up to date with that side.
Unlike you, I research both, or all sides of a topic before jumping to a preconceived conclusion such as you clearly have done.
BA- Cheers.
-
Awakened07
Not sure why I'm doing this, as it will inevitably be futile, but...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4
-
BurnTheShips
Incidentally; you don't have to give up on a belief in God if you end up supporting evolution theory.
I don't.
Cheers.
Burn