by hooberus 44 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I am looking for the truth.
I think the issue is confounded and confused by the masters the powers that be.
Truth is where you find it.
There are problems with semantics.
The understanding of language and meaning which woulld indicate that we are evolving.
But what did we start from that is the question.
did we start as human beings or aemoeboas?
I respect evolutionist for pushing the envolope.
But dont always agree with them at this time.
and why doesn't the common ancester still exist?
The same reason 99.9% of all life forms that have ever existed are now extinct.
Once there was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time is called the Dark Ages.
I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He didn't.
(Jules Renard, french writer, 1864-1910)
I still have a problem with the common ancester(Ancient ape if we must lol) equalling ape in one direction, human in the other! it seems very contrived still, and why doesn't the common ancester still exist? Ape cannot be such a big a leap not so many difference from the original given the millenia time-frame and human must be a massive leap we can can reason etc have developed so many hundreds more complexities in the same time-frame.
I think Darwin himself did believe we descended from apes but that doesn't work as scientifically, if the ape exists the human exists the inbetween stages should exist too but they don't so the above new theory was developed, were a common ancester is introduced that can be conveniently killed off, but like I said it doesn't explain things really, it sound more like someone has done the cognative dissonance thing to evolution to make it still fit.
The scientists have hit a brick wall of that of one animal type been unable to become another and they know it and the more we get deeper into the differences between one species and another at the gene level the more holes appear in the evolution theory.
I wouldn't be surprised if the evolution theory isn't disproved by the very science that apparently once proved it eventually.
Reniaa - Your ignorance on this subject would be shocking considering your country of residence if it didn't appear to be a common trait for you to ignore obvious truths that you find troublesome.
The term "Ape" is used much too broadly by creationists in coming up with this bogus argument. Darwin did NOT think that we derived from modern apes. He was well aware that we derived from a common ancestor which was a different creature altogether. The common ancestors were not the creatures that exist today. But this whole concept is a red herring.
Even if the creature we derived from did not die out, that is totally predictable by evolution and to be expected. Beings diverge because of environmental differences. Of two animals born to one mother, one stays where it was, the other walks away to a different environment. The family that stayed in place will not have as many environmental pressures to change, where as the one who moved to a different environtment, with different foods, predators, climate, etc. will end up on a completely different and accelarated evolutionary path. This is exactly how it works!
And you are completely ill-informed in believing that there are no intermediate fossils (missing links). Both fossil and DNA evidence completely tell the story in their own way, and are in total harmony!
You are sadly happy in your ignorance in this as well as other subjects of "belief". I'd tell you to read a book before commenting on the subject, but I seriously doubt you would.
PrimitiveDave: Now I "believe" in Evolution, but it is not a system of belief that requires 100% certainty.
You have hit on the one inequity that I see time and again in debate between evolutionists and creationists.
Evolutionists are scientifically allowed to have HUGE gaps in their ability to explain the "how" of evolution, the "why" of evolution, and even the "who," "what," "when," and "where" of evolution and are permitted to say, "Those explanation gaps will eventually be filled in as we gain more knowledge and understanding."
However, evolutionists refuse to allow creationists the same latitude. The inequity of this state of affairs is comical, in my opinion. I have found that pointing up this inequity is a great debate tool.
yawn...
For your own entertainment I offer my perspective:
Take as an example male genitalia. Complete lack of natural protection for this area of the male body proves to me that both evolution and creationism hold no water. It is a paradoxical question. If God truly cared about his creation, why not fit this creature with proper protection? Why leave his beloved creature so vulnerable? Similarly, if mankind hath evolved through a battle of 'survival of the 'fittest' why has not our bodies produced protection device or mechanism (retractable, shell, ect) ?
The evidence is overwhelming. New theories are desperately needed.
Auldsoul
However, evolutionists refuse to allow creationists the same latitude. The inequity of this state of affairs is comical, in my opinion. I have found that pointing up this inequity is a great debate tool.
You make a good point. I think a good example is "abiogenesis". They say it is not important, but they do need show how evolution started.
Drew
The females' is protected, as females produce fewer eggs than the males produce sperm, several orders of magnitude less. The males' equipment only needs to stay in working order until he reaches his prime, then he's superfluous. In other words, most men on our modern society are evolutionarily redundent. I believe that refers to men over 35, or so. Evolution is a mean master.
S
Evolution is a mean master.
Well said. People want to believe that the universe is, ultimately, a friendly place, that there's some consciousness "out there" that made our existence possible and for some purpose. It's not, there isn't, and the evidence for evolution and by extension the knowledge that it imparts to us of the millions of years of vicious struggle and slaughter that made our existence possible is too gut-wrenching to contemplate. But it's true.
Though Darwin did state "But we must not fall into the error of supposing that the early progenitor of the whole Simian stock, including man, was identical with, or even closely resembled, any existing ape or monkey", he did however (immediately prior) admit that "The Catarrhine and Platyrrhine monkeys agree in a multitude of characters, as is shewn by their unquestionably belonging to one and the same Order. The many characters which they possess in common can hardly have been independently acquired by so many distinct species; so that these characters must have been inherited. But a naturalist would undoubtedly have ranked as an ape or a monkey, an ancient form which possessed many characters common to the Catarrhine and Platyrrhine monkeys, other characters in an intermediate condition, and some few, perhaps, distinct from those now found in either group. And as man from a genealogical point of view belongs to the Catarrhine or Old World stock, we must conclude, however much the conclusion may revolt our pride, that our early progenitors would have been properly thus designated. (16. Haeckel has come to this same conclusion. See 'Uber die Entstehung des Menschengeschlechts,' in Virchow's 'Sammlung. gemein. wissen. Vortrage,' 1868, s. 61. Also his 'Naturliche Schopfungsgeschicte,' 1868, in which he gives in detail his views on the genealogy of man.)" The Descent of Man
