by dubstepped 340 Replies latest jw friends
Typical scenario...
100% that is what I read on here Cofty...I'm sick of it...creationists just don't want the answers...
The contrast to Dubstepped who is asking genuine questions and raising honest objections is massive.
Had a chat with a dub recently...he asked if I was ever going back to the WT...I said no and summarized I no longer believe in a creator...
He then described a flower in among a dark forest with weeds and whilst everything dying around about it it still stands...great testimony to "a creator" to give us something so beautiful.
When I asked back what does it say about "the creator" of the leech, the mosquito, the parasites etc he said that they were never designed to be like that in the first instance but man has changed them and in the paradise they will revert.
So evolution really then I replied...silence...end of conversation.
Honestly, there is no point in trying to discuss evolution or facts pertaining to life on this planet with 99% of people who "believe" because facts to them never outweigh faith...ever.
Many would reply that we're surrounded by Credible Evidence in virtually all directions,
Let them supply it so it can be critically reviewed by their peers. Oh wait. You mean someone walking in a park admiring a bumble bee and hence concluding that someone had to have designed and made that little feller.
yet not all are able to see it.
See what? Evidence of evolution? Those who stick to the dogma of ancient mythical beliefs will never see anything beyond those beliefs. If your belief is based on faith then you'll have to reject all evidence that does not support your belief. Not to worry. You have the majority of mankind behind you. If it was as simple as putting it to a vote, the theory of evolution would lose by a landslide.
It may be that there is an intense underlying belief (or fear) which renders them unable to see.
Which happens in churches everywhere.
I have got a Christadelphian booklet that disproves evolution. It's very interesting, including a section on the black mamba!
Specifically what did you find interesting?
Please share I can't wait.
I'll need to find it, I don't know where I put it. But from memory it says that the black mamba has two sets of fangs because they break easily when used against struggling prey. So when the first set breaks the second set can be used. It argues that there would be no use for two sets of fangs that are incomplete, or some intermediary stage, therefore they must always have existed fully formed.
I think this page has the same or similar content to the booklet I can't find, although my booklet was specifically about evolution.
http://www.thechristadelphian.com/is_there_a_god_online.htm
Let’s take a different line of argument. Consider for a moment the Black Mamba. This is an African snake which obtains its food by injecting a deadly, paralysing poison through hollow, curved fangs into the bloodstream of its victim. Once it has ceased to struggle, the snake engulfs the whole body into its flexible throat. Setting aside how the snake came by its highly complex toxin, we need to consider how it developed the hollow fangs down which the poison flows from a gland high in its skull into the flesh of its prey. If evolution is true, we have to assume that originally the teeth were solid, but became hollow over a long period, say millions of years. How exactly does a solid tooth become hollow? I asked an atheist recently how he explained this. ‘Oh!’ he said, ‘at some point a snake was hatched that had a small depression in one side of its tooth. In later generations this became a groove, and eventually the groove closed over to make a tube.’ This might sound plausible, until you consider the basic tenet of evolutionary theory that changes that are of no immediate service to the individual are eliminated. A hollow somewhere on the tooth would add nothing to its usefulness. Only if in the same snake there were several hollows in a line would there be a slight added efficiency. And those hollows would need to be in a line pointing downhill. A line running round the circumference of the tooth would be useless. The probability of an individual snake experiencing a whole series of such drastic mutations to the structure of its tooth simultaneously would seem vanishingly small. And then it only ends up with a groove. How did the groove close over to make a tube? Until that time most of the venom would be wasted, since it would not penetrate the flesh. Even then, the snake would still only possess one fang with a tube. But it has two fangs, each of which needs to be hollow.
What we are saying is that when you get down to the detail of what is needed for evolution to work, it becomes much simpler to assume that a God out there designed a working snake complete with poison and fangs, which He then set down as a predator in the great pyramid of life. We could multiply this example with a thousand others: the tear drain in the human eye — a minute tube that runs through the thickness of the eyelid; the migration of the New Zealand cuckoo across open ocean to the tiny islands of Vanuatu; the clotting of blood — essential for us to survive the smallest cut and yet remaining liquid while passing through the capillaries of our arteries — the whole of nature has mechanisms and structures that cry out ‘design’! Such brilliant inventions do not, in our experience, arise out of random events such as chance mutations in our reproductive cells.
