by lrkr 54 Replies latest watchtower bible
The theory of Jevovahism .........ummmm
"Although evolution is usually presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine."
One of the more stupider and nonsensical things that has been written in the WT. magazine
Which really brings to light as I mentioned before the educational weakness of some of the writers of the WT.
Good catch lrkr
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.
Holes nice so I should drop the theory that things evolved from a common ancestry (despite DNA evidence backing that up) to support your theory that Sky Daddy did it based on a holes the fossil record.
OK in that case man didn't land on the moon. There are also too many holes in the picture evidence to statisfy me that it happened. Screw your moon rock evidence they could of got those anywhere! ANYWHERE!
BTW roller you would happen to believe this theory this mueseum supports now would you?
I find it is fruitless to try and show somebody the error of a literal biblical view of earth's history when they are hell-bent on believing it. My uncle has a PhD in psychology but he believes in the biblical flood. I've tried to show him scientific evidence to the contrary but he reverts much to the same attacks as rollerdave and refuses to acknowledge anything that might damage his beliefs. The jury is not "out" on evolution, either. It is as valid as the theory of gravity.
I kinda tune out when even otherwise decent people start telling me what I believe, or that my lack of belief must be a belief. It's kinda like Phyllis Diller authoring "My Famous Beauty Secrets". Or me authoring "I Know What Women Like".
RollerDave-
I like the way you step up and defend your position. I disagree with you. But I like your style.
Lrkr
Check out the new fossils they are finding of fish with hands.
Rollerdave,
ok point by point
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.
You are absolutely correct in saying that not every animal leaves a fossil.
In order to make that statement you first need to dicount all dating method that determine our foissil record, you have in swoop removed about half a dozen dating method, why have you done this? as no dating method has dated our fossil record as starting 4000 years ago.
Secondly the vast majority of fossil we have are marine based animals (please research this) Now if a global flood had happened, the majority of fossil would surely be land based.
Also your claims that the flood would be able to sort the fossil record as see it. Then you would expect the animals with a more dense body structure to be at the at the bottom with those that have less body mass to be nearer the top. This clear doesn't happen. Your also have the Plant & vegetation issue. Clearly the bible writer had no understanding about plant life.
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.
The Cambrian explosion covered round 50 million years of time, are you going to throw all the dating methods out again? There is fossil evidence for-cambrian ' complex life ' as you put it. please research precambrian vertebrates.
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.
Your assumption of uniformity is about 100 years out of date. This entire statement is working on a method that 'science' has long since correct. the old method of assume that is an area lay down 2 inches in a year, then it has been the same for all of history is a totally dead idea, but one i still see creationists using for some reason. Modern Uniformity only states about the physical laws remains constant. Science has no problems with accepting catastrophic events happening which would upset and standard despot layers. however you need to show where this happening, as many local and even global catastrophes have been scientifically shown to have happened, yet the flood isn't one of then.
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.
What i think you are referring to here is differential sorting/escape. The problem with using hydrodynamic sorting, is that it fail to explain the flood, is more complex creatures, would be more at the top...e.g ocean dweller should be nearer the bottom and land animal capable of escaping should be found nearer the top, how on earth you do explain sea turtles, these are ocean dweller and are not quick on land, so according to your method we should find them on the bottom of the layers, but they are slap band in the middle of fossil record.
Of course we also have the problem of salt and fresh water fish, as neither can survive in each others environment. And also the vegetation issue
Isn't it interesting that most cultures have a flood legend and that their histories typically go back to about that time?
Firstly nearly all early civilization made home near water, so flood stories should come as no surprise. Most early civilization had very limited knowledge of the size of the earth, and any local flood would present itself as a global flood. So was there a 'great' flood during these cultures time, great yes...global no. Science has established that sea level have risen around 150 meters in the last 12,000 years, so isn't it more likely that these cultures are merely recanting their flood experience or that of close neighbours? The problem is that all other myths have huge variation in their storyline, if you want to accept these other myths are supporting evidence that the Genises flood happened, then you have to ask why you are accepting the genesis one and not the chinese one or maybe Aztecs one. Now if you say the other are myths, then why do they add add any credibility to the genesis myth.
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.
To quote King George regarding the 4th July ' nothing of interest happened today' Yes there have been global catastrophes, but 4000 years ago..unless of course you throw out dating method, and not a global flood. Your view of the geographical layers have to be completely at odds who have spent their entire life studying these layers. Isn't more feasible that 'you view' is wrong.
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.
Firstly we are only going to find fossil with bone structures generally of something that can fossilize, which would require a certain amount of complexity. The Elephant example you mention is dealt with by my sea turtle example. Ok the trees issue. Again you are using a old version of uniformitism. The accepted uniformitism doesn't preclude rapid layers of sediment being laid down using events, hence tress passing thru what you think science claims are millions of years are not a problem and are explained. See you can't make a scientific interpretation that is incorrect then base argument on that interpretation.
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.
This I answered in the hydrodynamic sorting reply.
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.
You know fanny in means butt in America, but means something completely different in England. Are you seriously wanting me to take Ancient Hebrew and writing from Incas to means the same thing? But i will take the issue anyway. You statement is somewhat confusing, but lets look at what the Hebrew term for leviathan is.. The origin of the word means twisted of coiled. The problem is that no dinosaur was every twisted or coiled. SO i don't see what relevance Jobs account has in this .
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.
The problem you have here is that you clearly are able to define what 'kind' is. To ask you to define that is basically backing you into a corner , which I am not going to do. But if you would like to feel free.
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
Start here - Molecular evolution of the dog family - this is an online link, but the references he uses particularly - Origins of the Domestic Dog, The Fossil --Record Olsen, S.J. (1985) _ don't have a scan of this, but your local library should be able to get hold of it
The more you learn about DNA the more you appreciate how ludicrous evolution is. The cell itself is irreducibly complex. So is DNA.
Oh come on, even Dr. Behe accepts human evolution now..read his latest book. IR is a dead donkey, IR by its nature is statement of ignorance, I cant understand it so it must have been created.
As far as cell evolution you need to read the Hundred of volumes about cell evolution. Organic compounds have to follow physical laws. Also many chemical biological compounds self assemble, I can only assume you are reading very outdated information or creationist websites. It is statements like that would keep us in the dark ages. Its so complex don't bother.
Please research on cell evolution, again your local library not your local church is the place to read up about this.
A non sequiter. No place does the bible claim that siblings cannot conceive. It's certainly a bad idea, and something I wouldn't do. but then you should see my sisters (shudder)
I probably didn't make my statement very clear, my point was that according to Genesis incest had to have happen in the beginning in order for the human race to grow. This can not happen.
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?
That wasn't what i was saying, I was saying that that evidence can constantly reshape the details, Religion simple doesn't work this way. Religion buy it very nature cherry picks its evidence to support as preconceived idea.
Here the thing i find strange, people who claims Evolution is a religion ( apart from that doesn't make sense) offer no evidence for this claims. And if that is true then those who believe in gravity are also a religion and you just descend into silliness then. By the way more is understood about evolution that gravity yet i don't see many people reject gravity. So it doesn't come down to evidence it comes down to what one 'WANTS' to believe .
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.
The problem i have RD with this is that you have to throw out what evidence doesnt suit you belief, i.e dating is HUGE issue for literal creationists, so you have to rejecting dating method, to do so means you have to reject so many other disciplines as well. you end up with just picking evidence , and why do you need evidence anyway. If you are looking for evidence to support the bible then reject it if it contradicts it, then the authority in your eyes is the bible, if this is the case why are you looking for evidence else where.
Science can be wrong and sometimes the majority of a theory is over turned, however if you look at evolution it has took over a 150 years of more and more complex testing methods, and each time ti confirms evolution not turns against it.
If you accept the bible as authority then state what the bible say is correct and anything that contracts it is wrong. But don't try any cherry pick evidences to suit a predetermined out come. That is religion not science.
Your final statement is astounding in ever sense of the word. What evidence do you need? you have the bible right? why do you need evidence to support you idea? I spent 30 years as a Christian and if you live in that bubble then yes you can think there is all kind of evidence for your view, , but it is religion that ignores evidence when it suits. What you present in your response was unsupported claims and statement, that echo tired old creationist argument, that have been debunk so many times.
The examples you provided were incorrect and non factual, i didn't reject those on faith i reject those on evidence to the con try.
When you mention I don't need God anymore, which God are you referring to? Do i need god...err no, my parent convinced me, and i exisit quite well every day without any invisible man or woman in the sky... what do you need God for?
If you think the bible is the only word, then have the conviction to say , i don't care what science shows , i will reject anything that goes against the bible. But to cherry pick evidence and try and twist them to suit your predetermined idea, that is being nothing more than an apologist, and that puts you on a highway to nowhere.
Gonna have a drink now.
Evolution is part of a religion called "Humanism".
The Serpent invented Humanism in the Garden when he said to Eve "Ye shall be as gods". This is the basis for the One-World Religion of the New Age.
Evolution, Big Bangism, and Copernicanism are ancient teachings from Kabbalah, which is the basis of Freemasonry.
Ironically, the Tower is full of modern day Kabbalistic Pharisees, so it's surprising to me that they would want to open up this can of worms. Of course not many of the dubs would question anything they say, let alone maybe do some personal research on the Internet.
I just finished an article on this subject on my new website:
http://www.love-the-truth.net/serpent_religion.html
Cheers
ProdigalSon
I think that ANY idea that is touted as the ONLY way or ONLY truth has become LIKE a religion.
Including the above statement.
