So EQV was I right?
Evolution: The Deal Breaker
by Hadriel 150 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
M*A*S*H
What on earth are you talking about? I mean are these serious questions you are asking? I am struggling to understand your motivation behind asking them. Do you genuinely believe these questions you ask cannot be answered?
I suppose there is a small chance you genuinely want to learn about the science and theory backing evolution. If you do I am sure Cofty (or others, or myself) would take the time to answer your questions. Perhaps just pick one point and if you are willing to discuss it the evolutionary explanation could be provided.
-
GrreatTeacher
Who's claimed that evolution has stopped? -
Quarterback
It seems to me, and I got this by skipping through some posts, that there are some disagreements in the Evolution theory camps. Just as there exists in the Creation camps. I'm sure that some would also disagree with what I said. -
Esse quam videri
cofty -
Which books that present the scientific evidence for evolution you have read.
I predict the answer is none and that you will ignore the question.
Your questions strongly suggest you have never read a single word.
My dear, dear, cofty. Let me explain the way this works. When someone propounds a belief they leave themselves open to inquiry from whoever may take an interest in the subject. If the inquiry is insincere they may chose to ignore it or answer in kind or answer sincerely to adjust the thinking of the inquirer or answer to reach other onlookers who may be more accepting of the argument. Whatever the reason, it is valid to the responder. It does not have to make sense or find favor with anyone else. How you answer is totally up to you. However, the inquirer does have the right to continue asking questions and making comment on the belief as long as the responder, you for example, continues to make reply. [I'll change the thought now because I think I am starting to confuse myself.]
Therefore, being as YOU are the one who is forwarding your belief, and I am not forwarding any belief, but merely asking questions and making comment [even if they are, at times, smart ass comments] I do not have to answer any questions, I do not have to prove I have read any books, I do not have to justify my thoughts. It is sufficient for me to simply forward questions and comments that you, the propounder of the belief, may or may not choose to answer.
-
EndofMysteries
You think that potentially finding out that an alien life form was responsible for creating life here on earth will solve the question of the origin of life? Isn't it obvious that if that was the case, then the next logical question would be "who created them" and so on?It would solve the origin of OUR life, but not all life. But dismissing it no matter what and never attempting to check if that is a possibility if it actually is will ensure we never get the answers. Let's say we create an artificial/robotic life form. Thousands or millions of years from now the Earth is a desolate waste but this artificial robotic lifeform were made to replicate and create new ones as older ones eventually died. They can dismiss that another life form ever created and became their origin and try to forever figure out how metals and circuit boards evolved from something floating around on the desolate Earth but the fact would be that a biological lifeform had existed and created them long ago. If they figure that out, they found the truth of their origin. They still won't know where life originated but they'd be a step closer.
-
EndofMysteries
Let's put forth the (very simplistic) hypothesis that it requires a lightning bolt to a primordial lake to start off the first. In our labs we do not have the space for a lake nor is anyone in the world capable of generating full-force lightning (we don't even fully understand the phenomenon). That is the difficulty right now in evolutionary theory - we have all the pieces and the puzzle is almost complete, but it's missing some things in the middle, namely, the absolute certainty of the genesis of life (we have an idea of where to look) as well as (on the other end) how to shape our future evolution (although we've been doing that inadvertently for the last 10,000 years or so).
Scientists can easily create an airtight room, extract all the oxygen from it, have only chemicals and gases thought to have been around during that time, and electricity can be surged into the pool in that room.
-
Esse quam videri
MASH '...What on earth are you talking about? I mean are these serious questions you are asking? I am struggling to understand your motivation behind asking them. Do you genuinely believe these questions you ask cannot be answered?'
Serious questions? Cofty thinks he has it nailed in explaining how a fin turned into a finger. [ie. getting eaten by predators. Time to get out of the water.] Subject after subject after subject.I am waiting for Cofty to explain how evolution produced the following :
1] anger
2] embarrassment
3] joy
4] love
5] happiness
6] a warrior getting weak in the knees at the sight of a pretty girl and how a girl can wrap a strong man around her little finger
7] willingness to sacrifice a life for a cause
8] deceit
9] greed
10] nostalgia
11] memory
12] loyalty
13] devotion
14] committment
15] a desire to care for the weak and vulnerable even if it risks your own welfare
16] how love and kindness [the spiritual] can get more lasting and meaningful response from a person or group or people than threats and fear of harm [the physical]
17} mildness
18] self control
19] language
20] etc,etc,ect,
-
Mephis
I am waiting for Cofty to explain how evolution produced the following :
So you're asking how human evolution resulted in things which allow for socially cohesive groups to form in a species which relies upon socially cohesive groups to flourish? I'm sure the answer may be in the question. -
Anders Andersen
@Hadriel:
That's what evolutionists want. Common ancestry and genetic code means only one catalyst or origin. That is unwise.
Are you guys telling me that you know unequivocally that the common genetic code we see that it could have only started one possible way, that being happenstance?Either someone forgot tot tell you, or you missed it: LUCA means Last Universal Common Ancestor.
Please note the Last, as opposed to First. LUCA was not the first life form. Nor was it all alone in itself time. Most likely it was a member a very interesting and crowded community of different primitive microbial life forms. It's also likely that at that time horizontal gene transfer took place (e.g. between different life forms, in addition to vertical gene transfer from generation to next generation), so different life forms influenced each other.
Formal testing has pointed to a single organism being the LUCA to all organisms currently alive (that we know about). This is much more likely than current life having multiple, non-related ancestors.
What does all of this mean for you?
- No happenstance. Life probably started in different places, in different ways, with different life forms as a result.
- Somewhere down the line all lifeforms died, except descendants of a specific lifeform we now call LUCA.
- 'Evolutionists' (is that similar to Gravitationists?) don't point to LUCA as a result of a single catalyst. LUCA points to a bottleneck sometime long ago.
Think of it this way: according to the Bible myth, Noah is mankind's Last Common Paternal Ancestor. That does not mean he was either the first man, or the only man in his time.
I hope this clears thing up a bit for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor?wprov=sfla1