by NewChapter 71 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The arguments in the article were purely emotional. They didn't go into any deep scientific fact, they didn't explain their process, they simply said it is all so complex there MUST be a designer. But then who designed the most complex of all, the designer?
I can't believe how shallow this writing is. I don't know why I ever thought it was deep and logical. They try to support their assertions by quoting scientists and saying "See they agree too!" It makes no sense. It makes me cringe now.
NC
@NewChapter : i must apologise for the insults earlier on, i guess my temper was high then, wont happen again okay.
Now i tend to reason a bit with evolution, but its enormously differ from what atheist define evolution to be. Most evolutionalists DONT believe in creation. Now i do acknowledge that evolution has aided in the diffirent kind of animal species we have scattered through out the world, and they all like in conditions that suite their mode of living. Lets say even among animals like sheep and goat there are living conditions that suit the different kind of species. While some do well hot weather and locations, others are nore suited with places where temperatures are cold and freezing. So my explanation of evolution would be the ability of living organisms to adapt to our surroundings to suit our living. That would account for why most animals differ from each other depending on their location, consider these two dogs.
I suppose their requiment of suitable living would be different condering their features. Yet they both are dogs and totally different from other animals.
Again i really dont understand how can believe in the existence of God/a god and argue about his ability to affect life. perphaps i have a wrong defination of what you call god.
<iframe frameborder="0" width="480" height="276" src="http://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/xdm5he"></iframe><br /><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdm5he_richard-dawkins-demonstrates-laryng_tech" target="_blank">Richard Dawkins Demonstrates Laryngeal Nerve of...</a> <i>by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/blindwatcher" target="_blank">blindwatcher</a></i>
Just take a look at this video, and listen to his arguements why he doesnt accept the concept of creation.You realize that he argues why that vein has to come all the way down and back up again rather than being just connected directly. He claims evolution is to account for such process and not Intelligent design.
What he FAILS to mention is the implications that vein has on the girrafe if it is bad. If the vein DOES NOT have any disadvantages in regards to its lenght who is this a failed design?
There are no VALID reasons to support his arguement. Yet it is to be accepted that, the particular vein originated from fishes and evoled into what we have as giraffes now.
i was trying to embed the video but its not working so here in the link
http://richarddawkins.net/videos/643369-demonstrating-an-accident-of-evolution-in-a-giraffe
Yet they both are dogs and totally different from other animals.
Is it possible to draw a clear line between dogs and other animals?
For example, I would consider the dog and wolf to be basically the same animal because they both have 78 chromosomes and can interbreed.
I would also consider the wolf to be a very similar animal to the coyote and jackal because they also have 78 chromosomes and can interbreed.
Things start getting difficult though as species drift away.
South American Maned wolf: 76 chromosomes
Hoary fox and South American Bushdog: 74 chromosomes
Bat eared fox: 72 chromosomes
Gray fox: 66 chromosomes
Fennec fox: 64 chromosomes
Arctic fox and Kit fox: 50 chromosomes
Red fox: 36 chromosomes
Evolution teaches us that living organisims change to adapt to their enviorment.
Why would GOD NOT allow for that?
Why would God NOT create VIA that?
What most creationalist have issues with is naturalisim and the "ultra-darwinisim" that is used by the more vocal atheists that believe religion to be a bad thing and believe evolution can be used to "fight against it".
Science has proven evolution ( change over time) happens but science makes NO comment on where life came from or even why evolution happens the way it does ( though it has put forth theories like "survival of the fittest", "selfish genes" and so forth).
There is no reason for any believer to be hostile against evolution since all it really states is that living organisims will adapt and change to survive.
bioflex what would you think about somebody who argued against ths bible but who had never studied it? Science is hard, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand. How much effort have you made? Have you read any of the books I recommended or are you just saying stuff you heard another creationist say somewhere?
Most evolutionalists DONT believe in creation.
No shit?
even why evolution happens the way it does
Actually, PS, science has a lot to say on this issue.
Bioflex, let's take belief in a creator out of this argument. Many people believe in a creator and still believe in evolution. This issue here is the creation account versus evolution. People of faith often reconcile the two by saying the creation account was a story told to individuals that had no scientific knowledge. Now we could argue why the account, while not scientific, was not scientifically accurate anyway---but that is a different subject. The subject here, I believe, is are we here by the Genesis account, or by evoltution.
There is more to speciation than adaptation. They are not mutually exclusive, but the picture is much bigger. Darwin theorized that speciation came about through natural selection, but ALSO through isolation.
So dogs have many subspecies, and these subspecies can interbreed, but they are also adapted to their environment. Good, we agree. But what happens when a subspecies is isolated from other subspecies---either through environment, a barrier or some other means---for vast depths of time? Welll---genetic drift. Genetic drift is where less genes are introduced into a species (because of isolation) and so through natural selection some traits are favored over others. Over time, some traits are lost in the genetic code and are not expressed anymore in genotypes (the genetic makeup) or in phenotypes (what we can observe in the individual).
If enough time has passed, even if these subspecies are brought back into contact with their original group, they may no longer be able to reproduce. This may be because genetically they have grown too far apart---but it is also behavioral. They may lack sexual recognition, which means traits have changed so much, the other species no longer recognizes the other species as a mate. This could be through color patterns on the face, certain odors---whatever. They don't see the other as a potential mate. Now the isolation becomes deeply or irreversibly ingrained and speciation has occurred.
You should look up two terms for our conversation: Puctuated Equilibrium and Adaptive Radiation. They will help you understand some more shades of the speciation process.
The story is not simple. We learn more everday. For instance, you already know that gentically we are closest to chimps and closest to apes overall. So we share a common ancestor (more recently than with other species. If you go back far enough, all species have a common ancestor). Our shoulders are very much like apes. But our HANDS are more like monkeys. Our commom ancestor with monkeys is further back than with apes, but we have to consider the entire primate line to get the bigger picture. Our hands responded to evolutionary pressures similiar to what monkeys responded to.
I threw that in there to show you how complex this discussion is. It is not purely linear. There are many concepts to absorb, and unless you do, you really can't dismiss any argument because you are basing your opinion on only a wedge of knowledge. Go research those things and let us hear what you think.
NC
Actually, PS, science has a lot to say on this issue.
Scientists have a lot to say.
Just take a look at this video, and listen to his arguements why he doesnt accept the concept of creation.
bio...think you missed the point of that demonstration. Yes Richard Dawkins does not believe in a creator or god. But that demonstration was not about proving there is no creator. It was pointing out the flaws in the hypothesis of Intelligent Design.
If the vein DOES NOT have any disadvantages in regards to its lenght who is this a failed design?
The laryngeal is a nerve not a vein. The point was not that it was a 'failed design'...the nerve is functional of course. It demonstrates that if God were to blueprint the nervous system of a mammal - intelligently design it - the obvious choice would be to take the shortest route with that nerve. If running electrical wire in your home would you take the shortest route from the panel to an outlet, OR go to one end of the house and back again? Shortest route is the most intelligent design choice.
The laryngeal nerve is not exclusive to the giraffe. You and I have one and it does the same thing. It points out that it is a common feature in all mammals, a "flaw" because natural selection has no foresight and genetically passed down from a common ancestor. The vas deferens do the same thing - they needlessly do not go from point A to point B. They wrap around the ureter which causes ulcers in men. Not smart....IF it was designed.
You can still believe in a creator/god and accept evolution. What if god just hit the "go" button, started life on earth, and let natural selection take over? I personally don't believe that as I see no evidence for a god. But there is no reason for evolution to threaten your God belief, but you would need to let go of the Genesis account being literal. And start to accept the facts of our biological history.
You can still believe in a creator/god and accept evolution. What if god just hit the "go" button, started life on earth, and let natural selection take over? I personally don't believe that as I see no evidence for a god. But there is no reason for evolution to threaten your God belief, but you would need to let go of the Genesis account being literal. And start to accept the facts of our biological history.
I think you are kind of missing the point i am making here, its not just about evolution threatening my God beliefs, i know you consider the genesis account of creation to be absurd. like wise the global flood, now what is the probability that the flood could have happened globally?, just consider the insane diversity of animals, dont you think its quite intruiging if you consider the vast level of intelligence humans posses, no other animal even comes close, so what is the probalibily that evolution could have set us this far apart?even from the ones you call our relatives?
There are many reasons why my belief in God and your definiation of evolution cannot co exist. The genesis account is just one of numerous scenarios neither science nor evolution can explain. Consider these if you want to
21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, 22 and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left.
****
1 The hand of the LORD came upon me and brought me out in the Spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley; and it was full of bones. 2 Then He caused me to pass by them all around, and behold, there were very many in the open valley; and indeed they were very dry. 3 And He said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?”
So I answered, “O Lord GOD, You know.”
4 Again He said to me, “Prophesy to these bones, and say to them, ‘O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD! 5 Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones: “Surely I will cause breath to enter into you, and you shall live. 6 I will put sinews on you and bring flesh upon you, cover you with skin and put breath in you; and you shall live. Then you shall know that I am the LORD.”’”
7 So I prophesied as I was commanded; and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and suddenly a rattling; and the bones came together, bone to bone. 8 Indeed, as I looked, the sinews and the flesh came upon them, and the skin covered them over; but there was no breath in them.
9 Also He said to me, “Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.”’” 10 So I prophesied as He commanded me, and breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceedingly great army.
11 Then He said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They indeed say, ‘Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off!’ 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, O My people, I will open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13 Then you shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and brought you up from your graves. 14 I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken it and performed it,” says the LORD.’”
These are just two of a whole lot i can bring up, especially the second incident. how does evolution or science explain something like that?. and this is in direct contradiction to what evolution supposes about life. it would be foolish of me to deny the enlightenment science has brought upon us but there are limits to how far science can go.
Most people wrongfully try to make it seem like science and belief in God complements each other. I for one prioritize my belief in God foremost and i dont oppose science one bit but your definition of evolution is something i can never accept.
@unshackled: sorry for mixing up the nerve vain thing.
The laryngeal nerve is not exclusive to the giraffe. You and I have one and it does the same thing. It points out that it is a common feature in all mammals, a "flaw" because natural selection has no foresight and genetically passed down from a common ancestor. The vas deferens do the same thing - they needlessly do not go from point A to point B. They wrap around the ureter which causes ulcers in men. Not smart....IF it was designed.
i suppose you are aware they claim that the nerve originated from fishes and since when did fishes become mammals? also it means all the diversity of birds,mammals and amphibians originated from fishes.
and also about the lenght of that nerve. would you recommend that the small and large intestines should have just been connected point to point?
i believe they all serve their rightful purpose as they are. perhaps they should have proven it was practically waste like your example of electrical wire (cot effective?) before they consider it non intelligent. dont you think?
@NEWCHAPTER : I have been quite busy today.
i dont really get how isolation could influence evolution in anyay, again i suppose sex/mating play a vital role in evolution in the form of interbreeding between not just species but different classes of organisms to make your point valid which seems highly unlikely. and conidering the life span of animals dont you think most of them would be dead before your time consuming process of evolution gets to play its part?
