How do Jehovah's Witnesses Explain This Fossil Record? (page 5)

xchange

I'm still trying to figure out what a Darwinist is.

Joey Jo-Jo

OUTLAW - Not nice.

With all the years of historic accounts there has not been one account that proves (evolution actually taking place) the theory fossil discoveries derived from evolution.

If evolution has been proven then Im sure that it can be tested with real DNA...but no.

debator

Hi Xchange

The problem about debating Evolution is you are arguing the process and you get into circular arguments.

It's like looking at how a car engine works and saying it made itself, intelligent design says there was a maker.

Calling someone a Darwinist is pegging them down to their belief that we came from some kind of random survival of the fittest type process (despite the fact few of Darwins explanations have suvived they have been replaced by a multitude of apparently reasonable theories of how you can get from sludge to man in a billion years without intervention from another source)

For me Darwinism fails because it uses time as a plaster to solve the problem that things (while adapting) basically still remain true to type from current observation from the world around us.

Genesis 1:21 (New International Version)

21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

notverylikely

With all the years of historic accounts there has not been one account that proves (evolution actually taking place) the theory fossil discoveries derived from evolution.

There have been several instances of observed evolution in modern times.

It's like looking at how a car engine works and saying it made itself, intelligent design says there was a maker.

Since that's not evolution, it's not a circular argument. The ID argument for a creator get into an infinity argument since, using the argument that life is complex enough to have needed a designer, the designer himself must have been complex enough to have needed a designer, and that secondary designer is so complex he MUST have had a designer, so on and so forth.

Calling someone a Darwinist is pegging them down to their belief that we came from some kind of random survival of the fittest type process (despite the fact few of Darwins explanations have suvived they have been replaced by a multitude of apparently reasonable theories of how you can get from sludge to man in a billion years without intervention from another source)

So it would also be accurate to call someone a failed creationist since most things that have ever lived are dead, amply demonstrating that the supposed creator is horrible at creating viable organisms.

For me Darwinism fails because it uses time as a plaster to solve the problem that things (while adapting) basically still remain true to type from current observation from the world around us.

For me creationism fails because it does not fit the evidence and ignores the issue of the creator needing a creator and, when ignoring that problem, wallows in ignorance.

moshe

Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist,

Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland

A number of scientists have therefore concluded that the evidence for evolution is too weak

well, two is a plural number and the WT writers don't care where the claimed scientist has his field of expertise.

xchange

Hi Xchange

The problem about debating Evolution is you are arguing the process and you get into circular arguments.

I agree. Circular arguments are tiring and unnecessary.

It's like looking at how a car engine works and saying it made itself,

Maybe you misunderstand the theory of evolution or haven't done enough research on it. No problems if you haven't, there is a lot of information to wade through.

intelligent design says there was a maker.

Not sure of this statement. I agree that the car engine had designers. No one is saying otherwise.

Calling someone a Darwinist is pegging them down to their belief that we came from some kind of random survival of the fittest type process (despite the fact few of Darwins explanations have suvived they have been replaced by a multitude of apparently reasonable theories of how you can get from sludge to man in a billion years without intervention from another source)

You do realize that science is a process of adding/building knowledge to previous knowledge. Should I call you a Russellite despite the fact few of Russells' explanations have survived they have been replaced by a multitude of apparently reasonable explanations?

For me Darwinism fails because it uses time as a plaster to solve the problem that things (while adapting) basically still remain true to type from current observation from the world around us.

Ok. At least I can understand where you are coming from.

Genesis 1:21 (New International Version)

21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Not sure of the scripture inclusion here. Is this your evidence for intelligent design? If so, how can I trust this statement? Who wrote this statement? Did they observe God creating these great creatures? Did God tell the writer to pen this?

stillajwexelder

It's false evidence planted by Satan.

Two posters have "tongue-in-cheek" suggested this.

I have heard this on a number of occasions from JWs and YECs/Bon agains.

What can one say against arguments like that?

sabastious

What can one say against arguments like that?

Is laughing technically a reply?

-Sab

unshackled

What creationists don't understand about evolution is that it makes no attempts at explaining why the universe is here or how. So the automatic response is to deny it because they feel it threatens their god belief.

Evolution is a fact...as much a fact as the theory of gravity, the earth is round, and we revolve around the sun. Read some books on it, do the research, and then try to deny it. Really though...how can anyone watch the laryngeal nerve video posted earlier and consider that intelligent design?

Believe in your god if you must, but accept one thing: evolution is a fact. At the very, very least...understand that we actually did evolve but go ahead and peg the whole process to your god. Then you are at least half way to reasonable.

debator

Evolution is just another word for "adaption" within species with extreme amounts time used to get over the difficult bits.

Science may build on knowedge but it is constantly destroying the previous theories as it goes along and just sticks the new theories in a frame called evolution (hense why darwins original theory is forgotten but the title is kept). Content is unimportant as long as it can be called Evolution and they can reject a designer.

How do Jehovah's Witnesses Explain This Fossil Record?

Share this