Made from Monkeys or from Dirt

by Satanus 47 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Abaddon

  Hi Dansk;

  I know Alan was limiting his statement 'Furthermore, they only work sometimes and on some people', which is why I did mine '(in terms of changing a recipients body chemistry)'.

  If someone takes an Asprin, you can see it in the body. If someone has accupuncture, you can see it in the body; that doesn't mean that either the Asprin or the accupuncture will work from the patient's perception.

  As regards evolution, start here;

  http://www.talkorigins.org

  There is no easy method to getting to grips with the evolution vs creation argument other than sitting down and reading for quite a while.

  I would recommend you look through a Biology text book for either 'A' level or University. I don't know what your educational background is. If you can read and understand stuff like photosythesis or metabolic pathways at those levels, then you will be more able to form your own opinion regarding the arguments made in the evolution vs creation debate.

  If you can't comprehend stuff at that level (yet), then you will be more dependant on the author's conclusions when you read an article, rather than your own evaluation of the argument. I think we've all been dependant upon other peoples' conclusions for far to long to go down that path again! Of course, the way to solve a lack of comprehension is sitting down and reading stuff so you CAN form your own opinion.

  I say this as I know ten years ago I could have read some articles that would have me thinking 'wow, great argument' that I would now pull to pieces. Just guard yourself so you can see the weaknesses in both the creationists' and the evolutionists' argument.

  Funnily enough, in the arguments here on the subject, creationists very rarely if ever hit on the major weak points of evolutionary theory, just bits they think are weak 'cause they don;t understand the bloody argument.

  I would love a creationist to come along with a really good argument on one of the weak points of evolution, but for the most part they are tilting at windmills or fighting unwinable battles.
• 

  peacefulpete

  SS..No intermediary links? I ususally am impressed with your awareness of the facts. Maybe I misunderstood you.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Dansk...I used to think there were genetic bounderies that mirror our arbitrary classification called Genus or "kind" in Bible terms. This is simply not the case. Evolution is as you recognize observable in the abundance of species. The brain seems to deny the possibility that species are a new type of animal rather than simply a variation. The process of adaptation thru decent with modification does not have brakes at the genetic level. It is only our mind's system of recognition and classification that creates these imaginary parameters. It requires we see beyond the outward appearance and see the biology at work to accept this counterintuitive fact.
• 

  Dansk

  Abaddon,

  http://www.talkorigins.org

  There is no easy method to getting to grips with the evolution vs creation argument other than sitting down and reading for quite a while.

  The link wouldn’t work. Also, I wasn’t saying that I believe in Creation – I really don’t know – but I don’t know about evolution, either. To give an example, David Attenborough, the famous English naturalist, has had some fantastic television programmes made and books published and in some he might say "40,000,000 years ago such and such evolved." However, I’d then pick up a newspaper and it would say "Scientists now argue that such and such only came on the scene 10,000,000 years ago." In other words, while evolution might be a fact – I don’t know! – the "evidence" has a tendency to shift.

  I like permanent facts, such as the way Carl Olof Jonsson was able to prove incontrovertibly that the date for the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians was 586/7 BCE and not 607 BCE. He was able to do this by supplying 14 lines of evidence. How can anyone believe that something is right when scientists keep changing the dates (doesn’t that sound familiar!).

  Hi Peacefulpete,

  The brain seems to deny the possibility that species are a new type of animal rather than simply a variation.

  I’m interested in ornithology and scientists believe they can trace all birds back to one common ancestor. The birds I specialise in are from the family Estrildidae , Estrildid finches, and it is apparent that, for example, in the genus Estrilda there has been some change resulting in different species, close examples being Estrilda troglodytes, E. astrild and E. rhodopyga. Three separate species, but all so similar that they are placed, rightly so, in the same genus. My brain allows me to appreciate this. What I say I have difficulty with is observing the actual change from one completely different animal into another, such as a reptile into a bird. I’m NOT saying it didn’t happen – I don’t know! – but I haven’t yet seen anything concrete to make me believe it. OK, there’s Archaeopteryx and there’s Confuciusornis, etc., but can we honestly say that the evidence for A resulting in B which resulted in C is incontrovertible? We only have hypothesis.

  If nothing else, what I’ve learnt from almost two decades of Watchtower dogma is to be sceptical until proof is beyond doubt!

  Dansk
• 

  Satanus

  Dansk

  I can accept adaptation, where something changes, such as forms changing sufficiently in a species to give them separate species status but keeping them in the same genus, and which is what some people term 'evolution'.

  They call that microevolution. One animal into a different kind is called macroevolution.

  Peacefulpete

  I know that there are quite a few intermediate links. But in this example i was looking at specifically the eohippus. I'm going to read over the eohippus info again and post on it later. If there are eohippus links that i missed, feel free to post them in the meantime.

  SS
• 

  Realist

  hamas,

  Scientists spend too much time sleeping on white furry rugs, made in Taiwan at cheap forced labour style prices .

  can you elaborate on that one?
• 

  Dansk

  Abaddon,

  The link works now!

  Dansk
• 

  Abaddon

  Hi Dansk; try typing the link in; it IS the right URL, and the link works on my PC when viewing the page.

  Also, I wasn’t saying that I believe in Creation – I really don’t know – but I don’t know about evolution, either. To give an example, David Attenborough, the famous English naturalist, has had some fantastic television programmes made and books published and in some he might say "40,000,000 years ago such and such evolved." However, I’d then pick up a newspaper and it would say "Scientists now argue that such and such only came on the scene 10,000,000 years ago." In other words, while evolution might be a fact – I don’t know! – the "evidence" has a tendency to shift.

  I realise you're not a firm creationist. Thing is, creationism is easier to believe it as at any point you can say "god did it" if you can't explain something.

  For example, some Young Earth Creationists will tell you dinosaur bones were put there to fool you, that god created mountains that looked eroded and valleys that looked like they were subjected to glaciation, and that he put all the photons inbetween stars millions of light years away in place; the 'appearance of age' argument, or a load of skanky bollocks as I like to call it.

  I emphasize that this is a minority opinion amongst creationists; it's an example.

  Also, scientific phrasing and journalistic phrasing are different; I gave someone the example last week of the Martian meteorite; a scientist would say it's chemical composition is similar to that of common Martian minerals and the bubbles in it hold air like that on Mars, and the two thing tohether would indicate it originated on Mars and got blasted off by a meteorie impact, eventually being captured by the Earth gravity. A journalist would say;

  Martian Meteorite!!!!

  ... the more you know, the more you can read through the hype or bias or plain old simple errors.

  You criticise scientists for 'changing the dates'. If the theory of evolution en toto had not changed with the discovery of new evidence and the development of new analytical techniques and technology, I think you'd have good reason to crticise scientists!

  What do you expect them to do when they find a fossil that cladistic analysis indicates fits between two other fossils? Ignore it? What if new dating techniques reduced the margin of error from +/- 10,000,000 years to +/- 1,000,000 years, and this meant that some theories needed revising? Leave them the same.

  I know you don't think that; hell, if science tried to keep a snap-shot of the understanding of the Universe made hundreds of years ago as the only possible interpretation of the Universe, it would be like... like... well, like basing your understanding of the Universe on the writings of a bronze-age goatherd and refusing to change the literal interpretation of the goatherd's words.

  I can however understand your caution over such things as we all got bit by that one. But it is different;

  Religious modification of belief; no facts change, but the belief is modified.

  Scientific modification of belief; facts change, so the theory is modified.

  But the key is mate, in order to make YOUR mind up, you need to know more. Think of it like betting on gee-gees; what do you want to be, a mug punter who bets on names/numbers/colours, or one who studies form? I certainly don't want to decide for you!!!

  All the best, if you've got any specific questions you can always PM me.
• 

  Dansk

  Hi Abaddon,

  Glad you can see I don't disagree with what you, or scientists, say but that I'm more cautious over any "evidence" presented.

  It's kind of you to ask me to pm you should I require an answer over anything. I may well take you up on that one day. For the moment, I'd like to ask - and I'm throwing this open - at one time there was absolutely nothing! I liken this to a black canvas (not a blank canvas - though, in essence, that's what it is also) and then, suddenly, something happens. Some have said this was the 'Big Bang'. If so, how did a big bang come from NOTHING?

  This isn't meant as a pro-creationist question, whereupon I believe God obviously must have started it. I'm not saying that at all. I'm genuinely interested how one answers how something comes out of nothing.

  Dansk
• 

  Mr. Kim

  Dr Watson,

  You Said:

  1. Can you create a black hole? Or a star? No?! Well I guess those things don't exist.

  2. Can you create something that normally takes eons to form? Like the Grand Canyon? Or a diamond? No?

  3. Can you create a god out of nothing?

  Your answers: (Without breaking any secrecy agreements)

  1. With current technology using matter already available, YES! We can create a Black Hole as defined. A Star? Again, Yes. --(Physics). Yes those things do exist and can be manipulated under the right conditions.

  2. Depending on EXACTLY what the "something" is, YES. The Grand Canyon? If you mean a elongated "hole" more or less shaped like that, Sure! Artificial diamonds were first created in 1971. (according to records).

  3. Create a God out of nothing? That is a stupid question and you did not think that one through in the irratation process you endeavor to give.

  No hard feelings and lots of love but, Is that the best you got? I have nothing to prove and nobody to convert to anything. When I offer information, it is free and someone else can accept the attention that so many strive to obtain....................

  Mr. KIM