by Gedanken 63 Replies latest jw friends
I read the article, and his statement is true about the fossil record.
Do you agree with Mr. Ridley that the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution? For surely, that is why he is EMPHASIZING that any REAL evolutionist NOT USE IT as a proof...
...BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THEM..
He knows that truth.
Do you agree with your mentor or not?
pomegranate asks;
1. If the evolutionary evidence is SO STRONG, then why would anyone attempt to make "truth" by fraud?
A scandal was just uncoverd at Bell Labs (now Lucent) in which a physicist (Schon) faked his data over several years. Well, by your argument, if the evidence for the validty of physics is so strong, then why would anyone attempt to make "truth" by fraud? Why does the WTS and other religions do it? Can you wrap your pea-brain around such a concept.
2. So, evolution is true because evolutionist's expose each other as frauds?
No, science works because frauds get uncovered - and if evolution is wrong - or an actual fraud - then that will be uncovered too. I know you dodn't read the article I posed by Coyne above - it is far to long for you and it might take yo the rest of your life if you tried - but that article , to the objective reader, is the epitome of the difference between rational people and creationists.
Gedanken
pomegranate,
Ridley stated that no one would use the fossil record as evidence of evolution versus special creation. That is because the creationist can just say "Go dmade it like that."
But that is different from saying that the fossil record does not support evolution - as the other person you misquoted, Prof. Salisbury pointed out in the paragraph I just typed in above.
By the way, when did you read the article - before you poste dthe quotation or after? And how about Salisbury's article? Did you read that too?
Gedanken
ps: if you actually have read Ridley's article, then your lack of comprehension of plain english - written for a lay audience too - is gargantuan indeed. You might diasgree with him, but that you cannot even understand what his point was is quite revealing.
Edited by - Gedanken on 29 October 2002 18:59:49
Still at it I see Pom, ol' buddy.
The Eye. Okee Dokee. You obviously conceive of evolution as one long uninterrupted string of gradual changes. That's kinda outta date. You may remember that I've said that God made everything and that evolution was his technique?
I have said that a smart molecule was turned loose on this planet and left to evolve. I believe that God had programmed into these molecules the potential for everything we see, each thing appearing at just the right time. So with the eye. It did not come into being slowly and gradually. The smart molecule was programmed so that the eye appeared fully formed with no transitional states and that's the way God wanted it.
Now, be careful here. God most certainly could have done it just like I describe. There is no reason for him not to have done it just this way. There is, however, a reason for him to explain it to early man in the most simplistic of terms. These early men couldn't comprehend how the sex act was connected with having children so how the hell could they ever understand anything as complex as punctuated evolution?
I say be careful here because if you posit that it didn't, couldn't, have happened this way then you are in effect saying that God is limited to the dimensions of your imagination, and a limited God isn't God at all. See what I mean? All you have to do to be able to understand this is to - for just a few moments - drop your obsession with special creation and step back and open your mind. It's the only way the mind will work properly - open, like an umbrella. And think long and carefully about punctuated evolution, what God is capable and NOT capable of doing, and how he might have explained a very complex and time consuming process to early man in the simplest terms possible. We are so much more capable of explaining and understanding complexities today than tribal, desert wandering, illiterate, savage bedouins were five thousand years ago. You sell yourself short POM, ol man, THINK about it.
And don't forget your waterproof Depends for our fishing trip. It's gonna be mighty chilly waddling around with them ten pounds of shaved ice in your shorts.
francois
Edited by - francois on 29 October 2002 19:19:38
Would that it were otherwise, but yes, the eye can be
explained - its development from light sensitive cells
in steps has been pretty well documented. Investigate
protein folding for a more miraculous example.
I strongly recommend "In the Presence of the Past".
It presents a much more credible form of evolution based
on a living universe with adaptive intelligence scattered
thruout - instead of atoms randomly bumping into each
other, creating things.
Not the kind of 'Creator' you're looking for,
but a good read.
metatron
I just thought I would drop you folks a line to let you know that I have evolved and am now superior to all of you. You will all be my slaves by years end. So I suggest you go out and get (as the British would say) pissed.
After reading all that, I think I could use a drink! Going to join you Crazy.
The rest of you should come up with a fun puppet show that depicts your belief in how the world was made.
I am pretty okay with the fact that NO ONE knows.
terabletera,
Well, then you and the majority of Evolutionists, including myself, are in agreement. Nobody knows exactly what happened, though we can probably rule out silly theories including Zeus, smurfs, the tooth fairy, or some other imagined being(s) creating the universe.
Creationists are the ones who claim that they know how we got here. Unfortunately they cannot provide any evidence for this positive claim. Evolutionists do not claim to know how we got here, but we do know a lot about how life progressed once it got here.
rem
Edited by - rem on 29 October 2002 20:13:14
Evolutionists do not claim to know how we got here, but we do know a lot about how life progressed once it got here
That should read, "Evolutionists do not claim to know how we got here, but you can be sure that it wasn't caused by any God."
Why don't you stick to the issue - you have misquoted two evolutionary biologists - and in the case of Mark Ridley totally misunderstood (possibly intentionally) what he was saying. The issue, pomegranate, is your dishonesty. Only you can rectify that.
Either you believe that the people you quote are insane - for they appear to contradict themselves at every turn, and in print or you haven't a clue what they are saying because you haven't read their articles. You have read misquotations in a slanted, emotional environment and it has caught you just like the WTS caught you.
Po,egranate, it is people like you who are ultimately responsible fo rthe emergence of religions lik ethe WTS. I'd rather face God as an evolutionist (since that does not contradict belief in God) than as someone like you who will lie to prove that their way is the only way. Your concept of creation - and your argumentfrom ignorance - is very Watchtower-like by the way.
Gedanken
