by dottie 172 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Hi Dottie, I'm a strong believer in a CREATOR. Please check this site out.
http://www.biblicaldiscipleship.org/Evolution%20of%20Creationist/Chapter%2000.htm
Check the name Dr. Jobe Martin in your search engine. He was a former evolutionists.
Guest 77
funkyderek, acorns growing into small oak trees and then into larger oak trees is the logical out- working of the same continous process. I (time allowing) will post why the micro to macro theory is not similar to this in that they generally involve opposite processes and not the out- working of the same process over longer periods of time.
Hooberus, I really can't fathom how you think macro-evolution necessarily involves some process which is different from observed speciation.
Say 2 groups of a species become separated. Over time macro-evolution takes them in slightly different directions and many generations later, it is observed that members of group A cannot interbreed with members of group B. This is speciation. You agree that this occurs, right? Now say that group B is separated into two sub-groups in the same fashion. Over time, the same process of speciation occurs. Now we have three species, A1, B1 & B2. B1 and B2 will be very similar, perhaps almost indistinguishable to the untrained observer. Species A1 will also be similar, although obviously less so. Are you with me so far, hoob? After several iterations and allowing for extinctions, wouldn't you have several different species which share some traits but differ significantly in others, the degree of their ancestral relationship corresponding closely to the degree of genetic similarity? If not, why not?
Now here's the leap of the imagination you may have trouble with. Imagine that instead of the world being brand spanking new, and your lifetime being significant in the scheme of things, imagine the world is old, vastly more ancient than you can possibly grasp, a million times older than your holy book tells you. Then isn't it just possible that the process of speciation may have continued for millions or billions of generations and that some species might differ hugely from others?
If you're saying there's something which stops this observed process from reaching it's logical conclusion, then what is it?
J6OCR9;
He was a dentist. He has no specific qualification in evolutionary biology, just in dentistry and systematic theology.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_martin.asp
http://www.biblicaldiscipleship.org/Request%20Materials/request_materials.htm
Here are comments regarding his Video set;
Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution, Volumes I and II
These videos feature interviews with Dr. Martin as he describes the attributes of these creatures, along with fascinating videos of the animals in action as well as descriptive animation sequences. Such creatures as the giraffe, the woodpecker, the bombardier beetle, the incubator bird, the gecko and the chuckwalla lizard each have physical attributes, defense mechanisms, breeding methods, and strategies for obtaining food that are so incredibly complex and effective that they defy the ability of the scientific community to come up with a plausible theory as to how these features could have evolved.
Dr. Martin describes the complex attributes of these creatures all of which have to be present at one time in order for the mechanisms to work and for the creature to survive. One of the principles of evolution is that creatures do not evolve a new feature until they somehow "realize" that they need that feature in order to survive. Yet with these Incredible Creatures, if all of their features were not present all at once, the creature would have died, and of course dead creatures cannot evolve into higher or more well-suited forms. These creatures had to have been created just as they are, by an Intelligent Designer whom we know as the Lord Jesus Christ, to bring glory to Himself and His great creativity and power, as well as to confound disbelieving evolutionists.
From this it appears his arguement is an old one; irreducable complexity. It's also hogwash. The red text is what I'm commenting on, the bold is direct from the quote;
that they defy the ability of the scientific community to come up with a plausible theory as to how these features could have evolved
This doesn't mean anything. Creationists cannot come up with a plausable theory of creation. Just because some features haven't been fully explained in evolutionary terms does not make evolution false.
the complex attributes of these creatures all of which have to be present at one time in order for the mechanisms to work
False, see URLs below. There are many examples of transitional forms in many complex organs and behaviours.
One of the principles of evolution is that creatures do not evolve a new feature until they somehow "realize" that they need that feature in order to survive.
Yet another creationist who cannot explain evolutionary theory without misrepresenting it.
with these Incredible Creatures, if all of their features were not present all at once, the creature would have died,
False, see URL's below. Underlines the lack of understanding of what evolution IS on part of the author.
These creatures had to have been created just as they are
False, see URL's below, plus learn about dating techniques and get a background in basic evolutionary theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/feathers.html
What is the reason that the earth is not considered part of a closed system?
Because it gets energy from the sun - heat energy (thermo dynamics, get it?) Entropy needn't increase on earth because there's a constant supply of new energy coming from the sun.
Is it because if it were, evolution would have to be thrown out? Then the reasoning would follow; since evolution cannot be thrown out, the earth must not be a "closed system".
Absolutely not. The laws of thermodynamics are fundamental physical laws. If evolution really contradicted the second law, it would be thrown out immediately. The earth is simply not a closed system from a thermodynamic perspective. If it was, it's temperature would constantly decrease until it reached the temperature of the universe around it (about 3K). Don't worry, in the long term it will, but not before allowing a lot of interesting things to happen here. Read http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html for further information.
Hooberus,
The fact that you can't see the difference between finding ancient artifacts which are logically atributable to human manufacture and comparing this to finding ancient artifacts which are claimed to be made by invisible spirit entities speaks volumes for your state of mind. If I discover an ancient ceramic art piece but can't document that it was made by a specific potter, Ogg the clay worker whose name was lost to history, I don't automatically assume that it, therefore, must have been made by invisible super beings. Human potters today make very similar objects to ancient ceramic items, some ancient pots even retain human fingerprints, we know ancient cultures used them from the evidence found in other works of art or from the fact that such artifacts litter old dwelling sites so even if we can't prove who specifically made the items we conclude from our evidence and known experience that such ancient items are most likely of human manufacture. A three thousand year old truck found in the future would easily fall into this same category.
The fact that you didn't grasp the meaning of my tadpole to frog example as proof that life forms can and do change from one form to another also illustrates your inability to grasp the most basic modern biological concepts. If we have no evidence for invisible super beings creating the diversity of life on this planet it is perfectly logical to draw a different conclusion from observing changes easily seen in nature such as water breathing gilled,finned, fish-like beings changing into limbed air breathers like frogs or human embryos. If we were a direct creation by God surely He would not go to all the trouble of having us follow such a complex development which looks mysteriously close to a pattern predicted by an evolutionary explaination. We believe evolution to be a more probable explaination for the life forms we see on our planet today rather than direct creation by invisible spirit beings because of the evidence and experiences we bring to the problem. In short, we have NO evidence or experience with creation by invisible beings so we consider this an unlikely means for populating a planet in the same way that since pottery does not normally appear from thin air we do not consider them to be the creations of unseen spirit beings.
rem said:
I respectfully disagree that your analogy was relevant. There are distinct differences between human artifacts and biological structures - so much so that they are analogous only in the most superficial of ways. True, an analogy doesn't have to be parallel in all ways, but it should be parallel in the important ways, otherwise it's a fallacy of false analogy.
Liberty said:
The fact that you can't see the difference between finding ancient artifacts which are logically atributable to human manufacture and comparing this to finding ancient artifacts which are claimed to be made by invisible spirit entities speaks volumes for your state of mind. If I discover an ancient ceramic art piece but can't document that it was made by a specific potter, Ogg the clay worker whose name was lost to history, I don't automatically assume that it, therefore, must have been made by invisible super beings. Human potters today make very similar objects to ancient ceramic items, some ancient pots even retain human fingerprints, we know ancient cultures used them from the evidence found in other works of art or from the fact that such artifacts litter old dwelling sites so even if we can't prove who specifically made the items we conclude from our evidence and known experience that such ancient items are most likely of human manufacture. A three thousand year old truck found in the future would easily fall into this same category.Folks, even if you disagree with my analogy can you at least try to see the point that I was trying to make with it?
Liberty said:The fact that you didn't grasp the meaning of my tadpole to frog example as proof that life forms can and do change from one form to another also illustrates your inability to grasp the most basic modern biological concepts.
Yes, Liberty everone agrees that life forms can and do change in the sense of tadpoles turning into frogs, and human babies turning into adult humans. However macro-evolution is a different kind of change in which one basic type of creature with its DNA is transformed into another basic type of creature. For example humans coming from amphibians over a long period of time.
Also your last phrase that I have an "inability to grasp the most basic modern biological concepts" is innacurate as macro-evolution is a different process than tadpoles turning into frogs.
Abaddon, I'm tired of your insulting attitude. Also it is simply not profitable for me to take the time to untwist all of your accusations and faulty reasonings.
rem said:I'm afraid I do not agree that the photos don't show substantial similarities. Evolutionary theory would predict that vertebrates would have a more similar looking embryology with other vertebrates than with invertebrates. That's exactly what we see (invertebrate embryos look much different).
Yes, and creation by a common creator would also predict "that vertebrates would have a more similar looking embryology with other vertebrates than with invertebrates. That's exactly what we see (invertebrate embryos look much different)."
Also the fact that invertebrate embryos look much different than vertebrate embryos, while not disproving evolution in general, does disprove the old "they all look similar at the embryo stage" evolutionary argument.
