by MYOHNSEPH 70 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Realist I would say that the situation is in fact the opposite. Many fields of science biology especially have found lots of evidence for creation and tons of problems with evolutionYeah. Vestigal organs are great evidence for creation and a huge problem for evolution. The same with DNA evidence, 'just good enough' structural design, and biological similarities between related organisms. There is just so much pro-creation evidence in biology.
rem
hooberus,
what do you think are the findingS in biology that strongly support creation?
Realist, here are a few: Discontinous fossil record especially between the major groups. Large seemingly unbridgable gaps between the morphologies of living organisms. Discontinous pattern of DNA similarities between groups of living organisms. Massive problems with a naturalistic origin of life. Complex functional structures such as the eye. Convergence unbelievability (such as the eye of the squid and the human eye being similar yet according to evolution sharing no common ancestry hense they formed separately.) Of course these will be protested bitterly by committed evolutionists, however you will just have to make an investigation for yourself. A good place to start is the book "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" by Michael Denton a micro-biologist who was not a creationist when he wrote his book. His book is simple enough for the layman to understand yet through enough for the more technical. He deals alot with DNA similarities as related to evolution.
Discontinous fossil record especially between the major groups.
Biology?
Large seemingly unbridgable gaps between the morphologies of living organisms.
'Seemingly' unbridgable gaps? hehe What makes you think that modern morphologies have to be similar for related species when their ancestry goes back millions of years? What exactly are you trying to say here?
Discontinous pattern of DNA similarities between groups of living organisms.
See above.
Massive problems with a naturalistic origin of life.
Evolution has nothing to do with the 'naturalistic origin of life'. Maybe you are thinking about Abiogenesis.
Complex functional structures such as the eye.
Been explained over and over and over again. Learn about the argument from ignorance logical fallacy.
Convergence unbelievability (such as the eye of the squid and the human eye being similar yet according to evolution sharing no common ancestry hense they formed separately.)
Nice arguments from ignorance here.
Perhaps you should read some books by evolutionary scientists before you start making book recommendations. Remember, most of us have read both sides, while it's quite evident you have not. If you have read books by evolutionary scientists then your misconceptions about evolution are inexcusable.
rem
"Yes, I accept that a certain line of ancient fish-like creatures are ancestors to humans and certain other modern organisms, just as Evolutionary theory predicts" rem
"I contend that only ignorant people would disagree with it. Unfortunately, ignorant people don't know that they look stupid." rem
"The idea that humans decended from ancient fish-like creatures is a fact. The mechanism of how it happened is a theory." rem
rem, since you admit yourself that you decended from fish (um..er..fish-like creatures) I choose to treat you as such, and "throw you back into the water." Whenever I take the time to refute you, you simply "bite at new bait" so I'm not going to waste time on your "objections" here.
Edited by - hooberus on 29 January 2003 20:49:34
Edited by - hooberus on 29 January 2003 20:49:54
Edited by - hooberus on 29 January 2003 20:50:12
Edited by - hooberus on 29 January 2003 20:58:24
"The idea that humans decended from ancient fish-like creatures is a fact." rem
Edited by - hooberus on 29 January 2003 21:14:18
hooberus,
aren't differences in DNA and morphology between living species exactly what evolution predicts?
Discontinous fossil record especially between the major groups.
you mean the cambrian explosion?
Complex functional structures such as the eye.
aren't there intermediate forms still found today that show how a very complex eye developed from a primitve one?
When Hooberus runs out of arguments he has to hijack the thread and go off topic. Typical.
rem
Realist said:
"aren't differences in DNA and morphology between living species exactly what evolution predicts?"
Realist, the classification between various kinds from DNA comparisons is much better explained by creation. For example while amphibians, reptiles, and mammals have differences between then in their DNA all three groups are approx. equal distance from fish. Whereas evolution predicted that amphibians would have been closer to the fish. Evolutionary theory had to add the "molecular clock" hypothesis to co-ordinate the data. Dentons book gives the info in datail.
By discontinous fossil record between the major groups I not only mean the Cambrian explosion, but also fish, and virtualy every other basic animal type.
"aren't there intermediate forms still found today that show how a very complex eye developed from a primitve one?"
While some eyes are more complicated than others, there relly is no such thing as a "primitive" eye. Also get a diagram of the squid eye and compare it to a diagram of a vertebrate eye such as a humans. Evolutionary theory states that the two eyes, which are remarkebly similar, (albeit specialized for their different envirnoments) evolved separately!! sharing no common ancestor. Eyes are an amazingly complex organ from the complex chemicals used in vision through their various structures.
Hooberus,
The human and squid eye are quite different, though they do look similar superficially. One major difference is that the 'wiring' is backwards in human eyes, while the 'wiring' in the squid eye is not. This also shows bad engineering on the part of an intelligent creator. Why would the nerves in the human eye be designed backwards, thus degrading human sight in comparison to a squid? This is clearly shoddy workmanship that is predicted by evolution, but only leaves unanswered questions for the Creation theory.
rem
