by lrkr 54 Replies latest watchtower bible
One thing that I found very odd and difficult to understand is why do creationist like the JWs accept the theory of adaption and the evolving of the species to its environment
which is in direct support of evolution but then they abruptly stop there and go no further ?
There seens to be a missing link here !
The problem with that is that germ theory can be put under a microscope, observed to be happening in the here and now
Have you personally ever seen a germ in a microscope? Or do you have faith that you would if you tried it?
How do you know the microscope works properly? Did you build the microscope yourself? Or do you simply have faith that it portays an accurate picture?
So you saw something in a microscope, how do you know it causes diseases? Do you have faith based on what the scientists tell you? Or did you actually observe the germ infecting the body
How did the germ get IN the body? You think the sick guy just HAPPENED to inhale it or get it in a cut? That sounds like it would take a lot of faith.
Remember, it's just a theory. And it has its holes, how do you explain the common cold? Germ theory fails miserably.
OK, now you're just making me smile, which I appreciate because my daughter just broke up with her boyfriend right here in the living-room while I have been carrying on this debate.
But, aside from that;
Studies with germs can be carried out in the here and now with reproducible results, and yes I have seen bacteria in a microscope.
Apples to oranges, but I admire your tenacity.
As to micro-evolution, it can be observed, reproduced, utilized. They breed long noodle-like dogs the chase rats into holes, and other bigger dogs for the rats who try to get into your jewelry while you sleep, but nobody has managed to cross species lines in spite of a world of effort.
Dogs simply cannot be bred into, or with horses, cats, bears, or people.
Although there is a determined cadre of sicko's on the 'net trying to breed with dogs, probably even as we type.
I'll just shudder to clear THAT image and go on...
If all of the species came from the same goo, and evolved down the line, kingdoms, phylum, family all that....
Why are the 'kinds' only fertile within their kind?
Don't they share that much-vaunted 90% or more DNA?
What is it that limits them and who set that limit?
Why is it that they 'reproduce according to their kind' when having a narrower gene pool of available mates could not possibly be viewed as a superior survival trait?
For me, the holes just abound the more I look at it.
But that's just my faith, I'll not try to convert you.
Had my fill of converting people, just defending my beliefs here.
RD
OK, now you're just making me smile,
which I appreciate because my daughter just broke up with her boyfriend right here in the living-room while I have been carrying on this debate.
Apples to oranges, but I admire your tenacity.
Thanks, I'm just bored and looking for something interesting to type about...
What is it that limits them and who set that limit?
I think you're reffering to speciation. It's when two groups of the same species, evolve to a point that they can no longer mate with each other, then they are considered seperate species.
It's not really on topic so I'll just post links in case anyone's curious:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_40
Yeah, that's my take as well.
I do genuinely believe my points, as I am sure you do, but it's also an effective strategy for keeping the cobblies at bay.
RD
Dear RollerDave.
I understand some of your points, but the problem is again and again the language. If we don't use the same meaning for each word, it's like water off a duck's back.
May I ask you some questions ?
Do you believe that the earth is flat ? You could answer Yes ! Because it's written in the bible...http://www.goatstar.org/the-bibles-flat-earthsolid-sky-dome-universe/ or because most of the human have never seen with the eyes a spheric earth. (some americans believe that the NASA pictures coming from the moon are fakes...)
But if I say to you : "I KNOW that the earth is not flat but is a sphere we have a lot of proofs" It's a knowledge and not a belief. If someone believes something, he or she thinks that it is true but may be mistaken. This is not the case with knowledge.
Since how many times have you open a book on epistemology, about the last discover of phylogenetic proving that Neandhertal and Homo Sapiens are two human species ? What do you know about Homo Florensis ?
Your claim and also the WT is : " Evolution too is a religion that requires faith "
This is simply not true. Evolutionary science is based on observation, fossil evidence, and solid theory and is itself falsifiable. No faith is needed and there is nothing sacred about it. Any part of it genuinely shown to be false is modified or abandoned. That is science ! Science accept to debate the discovers. You have nothing like that with religious. Religion is dogmatism. The ID is the same. No proof. It's only metaphysic.
But you're right. We don't know EVERYTHING about HOW life evolved. Is it a reason to put God or Odin or Bouddha in this lack ? We don't know exactly how works rogue waves. Is it a reason to say that believing in a physic phenomen and not a god act or anything else is RELIGIOUS ????
What is required for you to admit that life evolved ? Are you like the priests who found a lack in Galileo's defend (he made a mistake about the tides...) ? In the time of Galileo, do you think it was knowledge or faith about heliocentrism ? How many proofs did you request to admit that the sun is not the middle of universe ?
I bet the answer is just one. But are you sure ? Really ? I can use your words to create the doubt in your mind. Very easy... Do I ?
ps : sorry, if the english is bad. I'm not a native speaker. Cheers !
I love that one of my topics made it to 2 pages. So I'll just add fuel to the fire.
e=MC2- I don't completely understand the math behind this equation. I can't perform an experiment to prove it. But if asked, I would say that yes, I believe that e=mc2. I would even bet money on it. Is that religion? I don't think so.
The New York Giants. I belive in them. I want them to win the SuperBowl. I believe they will. Is that religion? That I think is closer to religion. My belief in their winning is more like hope. (some would say a far fetched and improbable hope) But it is a hope based on an organization, perhaps some stats, a gut feeling, and people around me who hope the same. It is not based on statistics, experimentation or any other well-established science.
I see this happen a lot, religion needs to bring evolution onto a religious footing so they can dismiss it, here the problem...
If the bible is right what would we find about our history....
Ok the fossil record would abruptly start in an explosion of fossils of current animals in a single period.
Then around 4000 years ago 99% of those animals would disappear, with all of those fossil intermixed in in the same time.
NO records of human development should exist before 600 years ago.
Huge geographical changes would have occurred 4000 years ago with a global food.
Here are the facts, and this is not belief. The fossil record shows the earlier you go less complex life. NO where do every find a elephant fossil in the Cambrian layer. Our modern animals simple do not exist in the fossil record when dinosaurs where around. dinosaurs do not exist in earlier time periods.
All living things are not 'each of their kind' all share similarities in their DNA. .
About the time the earth was being created according to Genesis is about the time the dog became domesticized (DNA evidence)
4000 years nothing happen in the geological column or any other evidence found.
Fossil are found that is consistent with evolution predictions NOT creation predictions.
DNA evidence should point to a bottle neck of human reproduction around 4000 years ago around Noah..it doesn't. everything point to central Africa. a long time before that.
Human can not successful reproduce with near blood relatives ( brothers and sisters) no evidence exists that this has ever been the case. which dispense of the garden of Edens story
SO you have a situation that all evidence point to evolution, ..will the theory adapt? i am sure will will continue, and that is the key, it can not be a religion when the theory can change without effect on those that accept it. Religion is based on dogma.
The claimed holes in evolution are claims made from creationists who ignore the evidence that surrounds them. For those that want to hold onto a belief in God while seeing what the evidence for evolution really is, I would Read Dr Ken millers book Finding Darwin's god http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201182562&sr=8-1 this is a brilliant book from a firm believer in God and lead witnesses in the Dover trail against ID
2 things tipped the balance for me in the evolution issue.
1. Chromosome evidence - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg (Dr. K. Miller)
2. the impossibility of the flood and the mountains of evidence it would have left behind.
Everything up to that point was stacking up against creation, but these 2 items tipped the balance.
I used to defend creation so i can't criticize anyone who still believes it, however when i was defending it on the doors, the Internet was not available, i sincerely do not know how I would cope with a well informed householder nowadays, as the faulty logic from WT over evolution is stagering.
Yeah, that's my take as well.
I do genuinely believe my points, as I am sure you do, but it's also an effective strategy for keeping the cobblies at bay.
RD
And Jehovah's Witnesses believe they are the one true religion and will argue the point ad nauseum. So you can see what we are dealing here with you trying to show evolution is a theory supported by facts versus one supported by faith alone.
5go, I'm not trying to say evolution is entirely a matter of faith, or supported by faith alone, I am pointing out that there are holes. Plenty of holes.
There is more than enough room for doubt, yet it is taught in the schools as f somebody saw it all go down.
Now if THAT's not like religion, I don't know what is!
round earth/flat earth.... Even simple primitive folk can see that as a ship pulls away it visibly vanishes from the bottom up with the top of the masts disappearing last. round earth.
If the bible is right what would we find about our history....
OK, lets have a look
Ok the fossil record would abruptly start in an explosion of fossils of current animals in a single period.
Not every organism that dies leaves a fossil. Very specific conditions are required. Flood like conditions. The animal has to be buried quickly and floods do that.
Instead we have the Cambrian explosion, and while these animals might not be considered 'modern' they are some of the most complex creatures ever. The eye of a trilobite is the most complex in nature.
This also presupposes the theory of uniformity that says that all of these layers were laid down at the same rate everywhere and represent eons of time. I do not hold this view. There are places in the Nile or Mississippi delta where you can get a tremendous amount of material, and other places, like around Lake Superior where there haven't been two inches laid down in 600 years.
I find all of these layers to be consistent with a worldwide flood and sedimentation. smaller, so-called 'simpler' forms would be overwhelmed by the swirling waters and stirred up sediment first, thus the Cambrian explosion. Larger, more supposedly complex forms are more able to seek higher ground and are found in much higher levels, typically all washed together, just like so many fossils are found.
This is, of course just as much a theory as the mainstream, but I find it to be just as good an explanation as the one that's taught like religion.
Then around 4000 years ago 99% of those animals would disappear, with all of those fossil intermixed in in the same time.
No, not necessarily
NO records of human development should exist before 600 years ago.
I'll take that as '6000', ok?
More like 4,000, the flood, remember?
Isn't it interesting that most cultures have a flood legend and that their histories typically go back to about that time?
A lot of research has been done and if one doesn't require fictional 'millions of years' to have passed, it lines up rather nicely.
Huge geographical changes would have occurred 4000 years ago with a global food.
With my view of the meanings of the geographical layers, THEY DID.
Here are the facts, and this is not belief. The fossil record shows the earlier you go less complex life. NO where do every find a elephant fossil in the Cambrian layer.
This is simply not true, the 'earliest' animals showed astounding complexity. Nowhere in my viewpoint is it required that you would find an elephant in the so-called Cambrian period. But you WOULD find the fossils that cross sedimentary lines, and there ARE plenty of those. Also forests of petrified trees sticking through a million supposed years of strata.
Our modern animals simple do not exist in the fossil record when dinosaurs where around. dinosaurs do not exist in earlier time periods.
Because the flood overwhelmed and buried first the sea creatures due to stirred up sediment, then slower lumbering beasts, then 'modern' creatures that were more able to escape to higher ground.
There has been evidence of dinosaurs in recent history
The Inca burial stones, 'leviathan in the bible, and many other local legends that have been dismissed because of the 'millions and millions' of years.
All living things are not 'each of their kind' all share similarities in their DNA.
I've covered this. 'each of their kind' does not mean that He would have needed to use different materials and workmanship, it means they can reproduce with each other. This is exactly what we find.
About the time the earth was being created according to Genesis is about the time the dog became domesticized (DNA evidence)
I would need to see this reference
DNA evidence should point to a bottle neck of human reproduction around 4000 years ago around Noah..it doesn't. everything point to central Africa. a long time before that.
The more you learn about DNA the more you appreciate how ludicrous evolution is. The cell itself is irreducibly complex. So is DNA.
Human can not successful reproduce with near blood relatives ( brothers and sisters) no evidence exists that this has ever been the case. which dispense of the garden of Edens story
A non sequiter. No place does the bible claim that siblings cannot conceive. I's certainly a bad idea, and something I wouldn't do. but then you should see my sisters (shudder)
SO you have a situation that all evidence point to evolution, ..will the theory adapt? i am sure will will continue, and that is the key, it can not be a religion when the theory can change without effect on those that accept it. Religion is based on dogma.
So evolution requires constant 'new light'? That argument didn't work to prove the wts was the truth, why would it convince me of this religion?
1. Chromosome evidence - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg (Dr. K. Miller)
OK, got it, gonna watch it.
2. the impossibility of the flood and the mountains of evidence it would have left behind.
See, I see this differently.
See, my viewpoint, although you may not believe in it, is fully fleshed out, is the result of much research, and is just as plausible as yours.
Does it require a bunch of really brainy scientist types to be spectacularly wrong? Yes.
Imagine that, scientist being wrong, has that ever happened before?
Constantly. Hence the need for new theories.
There is just as much evidence for my views as yours, we are both creatures of faith, it's just that you delude yourself into ignoring contradictory evidence or alternate explanation and pat yourself on the back for how modern you are that you don't need God anymore.
Good luck with that.
RD
