Evolution or creation?

by haujobbz 155 Replies latest jw friends

pomegranate

Too bad that is not what evolutionary science teaches, but IF it did you certainly would have a fine argument, you sure would.

Thank you for exposing the evolutionary floundering.

Evolution has done the two step quick step in that regard., with evolutionists totally DISAGREEING on the format of developement.
Evolutionists used to look for the "missing link" between man and ape. Since they have been WRONG in that regard as the fossil record clearly showed, the evolution theory itself EVOLVED to cover it's mistaken ASS. So, they make the theory even more convoluted and ridiculous by presenting it this way: This is from a recent text book:
"A central, and historically controversial, component of evolutionary theory is that all living organisms, from microscopic bacteria to plants, insects, birds, and mammals, share a common ancestor. Species that are closely related share a recent common ancestor, while distantly related species have a common ancestor further in the past. The animal most closely related to humans, for example, is the chimpanzee."
What evolutionists have recently done, is changed their developemental HYPOTHESIS to parallel developement rather than series developement. Which means rather than having ONE missing link between man and ape, EVERY SINGLE SPECIES has gapping holes of missing links between all the species we have now, and the "common ancestor" that all things have supposedly come from.
Funny thing is, all species do share a common ancestor with no missing links. God.
pomegranate

It actually should only be called the evolution HYPOTHESIS.
Theories are substantiated by repeatable laboratory experiments (like electron theory), which after numerous challenges by others in the field, are finally accepted as a scientific fact by the unrefutable weight of repeatable evidences. Evolution has no iron clad lab evidence behind it.
Evolutionists like to use a species capabilities of adapting to a changing environment as a proof of evolution. Adaptation is not evolution it is adaptation, as the species remains the same.
funkyderek

There's probably no point in this, but what the hell...
If we evolved from apes, then why are there so many UNFIT TO SURVIVE apes still surviving if we are the species that was supposedly the fittest?
It is a common misconception that evolutionists teach that we are descended from modern apes. Nobody believes that, it was never part of Darwinism or any related theory. The idea is obviously ridiculous. By definition, modern apes are just as far removed from our common ancestor as humans are. They are not "unfit to survive". They are very well adapted for their own environment and very good at surviving. Humans are much better at surviving in other environments. If the two species were competing for the same resources in the same environment, then only one would survive, the "fitter" one (e.g. the introduction of the grey squirrel in the UK and Ireland has made native red squirrels an endangered species). A change of environment appears to be a strong driving force for speciation, and this seems to be what happened in the case of humans. Apes are far better at surviving in a forest/jungle environment than humans. This does not make them "fitter" than humans. Remove them from their favoured environment and they will struggle to survive. The species will either adapt or become extinct.
It is only through ignorance (deliberate or otherwise) that people can live in Western society in the 21st century and not acknowledge the fact of evolution. The statements made by some in this post reveal an almost total ignorance of the facts and the theories of evolution. At least learn what your opponents believe before dismissing it.
LucidSky

By virtue of the fact that speciation occurs, evolution occurs. New species have been created in labs and in certain natural ecosystems. Minor evolutionary changes can even be seen in the races of humans due to environmental factors such as exposure to sunlight or temperature.
It IS possible that the universe came into existence or was guided through a superior entity. No one could ever prove otherwise. But who's to say this entitiy was the Christian God of the Bible? There is more evidence against it. And I, for one, can no longer believe an all-loving God would choose to create a universe that feeds on the death of its creations.
Still searching for answers...
LucidSky
rem

Pomogranate,
I'm not sure what you think is so convoluted about that presentation of Evolution. Sounds pretty reasonable and easy to understand to me and this has always been what scientists meant when they say "Evolution".
You are mistaken when you say that scientists were looking for the "missing link". That's what laypeople thought scientists were looking for. In reality, there is no one "missing link". Species branch off all over the place, so it is difficult to point to one serial progression.
If the fossil record were perfect and every living organism was preserved when it died, then it would be easy and we could trace back the lineage with no problem. Unfortuntately, dead bodies don't tend to fossilize so easily in the real world. Thus, there are 'gaps'. Fortunately the fossil record does give us a lot to work with and we have found several "missing links" as you like to call them - including ancestral human species.
Like I said before, you can ignore the facts and look like a fool, or you can do some research and learn a thing or two. If, after doing some research, you have questions or concerns, then by all means air them... but right now you don't even understand why your questions and concerns make no sense.
You don't even understand the basics, so you are not able to participate in an intelligent discussion about this topic.
Some good books to get you up to speed:
Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable, Richard Dawkins
Darwin's Ghost, Steve Jones
The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism, Eldredge
Why People Believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer
Demon Haunted World, Carl Sagan
And, of course, on the web: Talk Origins
rem
rem

jjrizo,
There are many people who accept Evolution and believe in god. It certainly isn't my reason for not believing in the god of the Hebrew and Christian bible.
I'm curious about your "new light" regarding evolution. From what I can tell, the fundamental theory of Evolution has been pretty rock solid for over 100 years. It's one of the most tested and validated theories of all time. Of course there has been much work that has increased our understanding of the mechanism(s) of Evolution, but the basic fact of inherited change in populations over time is undisputed and has been pretty much since Darwin published The Origin of Species. Actually, the fact of Evolution was pretty well known among naturalists even before Darwin... it's just that he was the first person to discover the most important mechanism: natural selection.
Do you have examples of this "new light"?
rem
gumby

Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts
The statements made by some in this post reveal an almost total ignorance of the facts and the theories of evolution. At least learn what your opponents believe before dismissing it.
I enjoyed these two posters thoughts.
Theories are explained facts. This was a good point actually in an article supplied by a poster.This helped me appreciate the negative attitude that comes with the word 'theory'
Derick the funkmeister had a point point to in the second statement above in bold.
I think non bible believers have a better concept of, the Christian faith......than do Christians of evolution. Most do not know...enough ....facts.
What the hell funkman....I liked your post.
Edited by - Gumby on 10 October 2002 13:7:52
pomegranate

Not one fact presented. Just "pomegranate" you just do not understand. Or, "pomegranate, you're doing this deliberately."
There are just as many in higher learning circles that deny the evolution hypothesis as there are that accept it. What are you going to say to them who are noted scientists in the same fields that evolutionists reside? That they just don't understand? Poppycock!
By virtue of the fact that speciation occurs, evolution occurs.
On what basis? Your word? Species procreates species. That has never changed. Evolution doesn't occur because fact is, there is nothing presently evolving. Where's all the current IN BETWEENS? What's the common ancestor for ape and man and everything else that evolutionists now claim? Ancestory means LINEAR developement. What was man before he was a man? Fish? Was man on four legs before standing upright?
Evolution demands more faith than believing in God.
pomegranate

The infinite complexity of the fluidic mosaic of the cell membrane is surely by DESIGN not random freaking CHANCE.
Go ahead, explain the amazing complexity of phospholipids, proteins, carbs and the like all bound together into this amazing in and out gateway of the cellular world by way of evolutionary hypothesis... Yeah right.
Try doing some cross science here kids...MATHEMATICALLY SPEAKING, evolution is RIDICULOUS...
Just getting inanimate chemicals to somehow become animate cannot even be qualified with odds. Without a membrane to protect this first step, it would be ANNILIATED before it ever happened. Water itself is evolutions worst enemy.
toodles!!!
gumby

Hey POM
Your a trooper
Evolution demands more faith than believing in God.
I will agree on this point for sure. There was a designer in my book. Common logic seems to overide any proof I have seen about Evolution.....so far. I may learn some things that make me feel otherwise. I would have to say I need to learn a lot more before it could be logical to me.
Things that happen by chance, survival, whatever....as far as I have seen.....never produce anything that seems to have logic from a human perspective.
I suppose my last comment will bring in someone like funkyderrick. I hope so. He has a good idea of the "otherside" of the coin.
Thanks Pom

Evolution or creation?

Share this