by nicolaou 76 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Nic: Alice seem particular guilty of hit and run posting. I cant remember seing her post about evolution on a topic that actually was about evolution.
As far as NaT, i wouldnt get my hopes up. A creationist who cant even copy-paste other creationist responses is truly a helpless thing.
Wow... this thread got a little Jerry Springer on us, I had to scan for people who were posting things actually relevant and on topic...
Thanks to those of you who replied to my thoughts and questions... Learning all the time!
Thanks for taking time out with your example. You say earlier in this thread:
Why, you'd think it had been designed, it would certainly look like it!
Complexity and the appearance of design are not evidences against evolution, they are evolutions triumph.
I don't disagree with any of this. Only to add (and this you probably will disagree with), from a theist perspective: whose to say that evolution isn't guided? Design and Belief in God are not necessarily against evolution. And the fact that evolution has a triumph may, again, point to a guide, a designer... and who is to say that something greater then all this started the whole thing? Who is to say there isn't a first cause?
You say:
Change the conditions and either life wouldn't exist (as the speaker suggests) or completely different life would exist and the argument would remain the same for those conditions.
We don't really know one way or the other, do we? How are we to say that different circumstances would come into play? We can only jump to conclusions that it would be so. But, even if it were so, even with different circumstances, what is to say that in order for life to exist that conditions would still have to be lined up: just so? The point I get from Lee Strobel and that video, regardless of if all his information is correct or not, is the unlikelihood of it happening, and not just the unlikelihood of one instance, but the unlikelihood of many, many, many instances - and that all those added up would be near impossible. For instance: someone winning the lottery and becoming a millionaire - it could happen. However that same person playing 10 times and winning a a million dollars or more each time? If that were to happen we would think the lottery was rigged. Doesn't science show us countless unlikely events happening over and over again in order for life to exist?
There are more fossil proofs than creationists make it appear, and keep in mind that the overwhelmingly vast majority of all life in the past did not seek to bury the dead or preserve the dead in some way to leave fossils.
I'm interested: where can I find these fossil proofs? It is fascinating.
I would say that what you say here is a hasty generalization:
Creationists then have to go to the preposterous contention that "Satan" has falsified the fossil record, what nonsense.
That might be true of some (the born agains, the non-denominationalists, the christians who go door to door and a few hard core conservative literalists in any faith sect) but I wouldn't say it is true for all. Many of us trust what we were taught and don't know, and some still see creations hand in part of evolution and think evolution is how it happened, and some say we don't know for sure because, well, we were not there, but we believe in God so we feel he had a part of it.
zannahdoll: I don't disagree with any of this. Only to add (and this you probably will disagree with), from a theist perspective: whose to say that evolution isn't guided? Design and Belief in God are not necessarily against evolution. And the fact that evolution has a triumph may, again, point to a guide, a designer... and who is to say that something greater then all this started the whole thing? Who is to say there isn't a first cause?
Two separate questions here; [1] Was evolution guided? [2] What was the first cause?
It seems from your comments that you've accepted evolution but perhaps not really jumped in and immersed yourself in it. Yes, evolution was/is guided - not by any supernatural agent but by non-random natural selection.
As for what "started the whole thing" or 'first cause'. Don't know - nobody does yet but I'd recommend reading up on the Anthropic Principle. Also, be aware that 'evolution' and 'first cause' are two very different matters. Evolution has never claimed to explain first cause.
Nic'
Zannahdoll:
...what is to say that in order for life to exist that conditions would still have to be lined up: just so? The point I get from Lee Strobel and that video, regardless of if all his information is correct or not, is the unlikelihood of it happening, and not just the unlikelihood of one instance, but the unlikelihood of many, many, many instances - and that all those added up would be near impossible.
The problem is that none of those numbers describe the real world; ie. if one accept the methology used to arrive at them, it follows that pretty much any complex configuration of matter (snowflakes, mountains, beaches, etc) must have been explicitly created by a designer in their present form.
It seems from your comments that you've accepted evolution but perhaps not really jumped in and immersed yourself in it. Yes, evolution was/is guided - not by any supernatural agent but by non-random natural selection.
You don't know that Nice to see that you agree that they were guided. Also: just curious: what do you think of people helping those who are less fortunate or handicapped in some manner? Animals help some animals that are weaker. Stupid people reproduce all the time... Recessive genes immerse... I admit I don't know enough facts about Natural Selection... and this may be a huge jump but thinking about it reminds me a little of Hitler and his wish for a supreme race.
The problem is that none of those numbers describe the real world; ie. if one accept the methology used to arrive at them, it follows that pretty much any complex configuration of matter (snowflakes, mountains, beaches, etc) must have been explicitly created by a designer in their present form.
Yep. Not that I take all the bible literally, but I do take the concepts and teachings:
Even the hairs of your head have all been counted. - Luke 12:7
God is perfection, so
all of God's creation is perfect, so
everything in the world is perfect.
T-Rex is dead, so he was not perfect,
otherwise T-Rex would still be alive, so
God did not create T-Rex, because T-Rex is dead,
except, God's creation is perfect, otherwise God would not have created it,
so T-Rex has to have been perfect, except, if T-Rex was perfect, God would have kept him alive to this very day,
except, T-Rex IS dead, so God created something that wasn't perfect and that is why T-Rex is dead, except God only created perfect creatures, or,
He can't be God, if only "some" of his creatures are perfect, so
imperfect creatures who died were not created by God,
so, creatures who replaced imperfect creatures must likewise be imperfect, too-
so, God must have not created imperfect creatures who died out, as God only created perfect creatures, because,
imperfect creatures who died out are not perfect, etc, etc, -
it depends on what is the definition of perfection...
Because something is perfect does that mean it only creates perfection?
Can something imperfect be made for the potential of perfection? (for the theist death isn't the end of the story...)
Could it be possible that perfection is reached in light of imperfection? Example: perfection could be considered what is good in ethics and love: It is easy to love someone who is lovable. It is easy to be kind to someone who is kind. It is hard to forgive when we are hurting. But to be merciful, to help someone who needs help, to mend what is broken, etc... Freewill...
