by AlmostAtheist 68 Replies latest jw friends
No, sorry, I won't be providing any. This is a thread for those that have done some research and concluded that evolution is not how various species came to exist.
Have you done the research? Do you believe that species exist as a result of God's direct creation? Please share the evidence that has led you to that conclusion.
I don't want to convince you you're wrong, I just want to see why you think you're right. Just curious.
Dave
The only good argument the JW?s pose, is why the gap in the fossil record. Why is the missing link, missing? That?s about all I can think of.
The only so-called evidence against evolution is the lack of a precisely described mechanism to drive changes in structures. The general mechanism, though, seems clear enough: mutations acted upon by various forms of selection.
Jula71, there is no such thing as a "missing link". That concept was abandoned early in the 20th century. As for "gaps in the fossil record", there are inevitable gaps, since the chances of fossilization of a particular critter are miniscule. Nevertheless, the fossil gaps in human evolution are rapidly being fill in.
AlanF
I do believe in the basics of evolution, but there seems to be one aspect that is not accounted for and may play a part
though I dont believe any god is involved, and that is consciousness....or some factor that has the ability to see and change things outside of simple evolution...
example, I have seen butter flies with every letter of the alpha bet on their wings
I have seen plants that look like wasps
I have see many animals with deceptive appearances that scream out, hey wait a minute...random variations retained because of advantage does not explain how this animal had the ability to randomly develope these particular traits which no other animals remotely possess... know what ah mean vern?
The question really addresses a prime misunderstanding about evolution being two things.
Firstly it is the fossil record; this is proof of the event taking place. It is such a massive and well documneted set of evidence that it is unreasonable to doubt it, unless one subsribes to some reasoning such as "god put the bones there to fool people".
The timescales may be argued over, but there is good correspondence between dating techniques that make claims that life is only tens of thousand years old equally unreasonable.
However, evolution also refers to the theories about the mechisms of this process, which are open to argumentation as they are not proven to the same level of certainty.
I have seen plants that look like wasps
There are many examples of plants that have bug/animal like traits, generally to attract the bug/animal to them for pollenation/seed dispersal purposes. This is a prime bit of evidence against the Biblical account of creation, since it lists the plants having been created first. Why create a plant with an appearance that mimics an animal that hasn't been created yet? And how would such a plant survive until the day arrived when its symbiotic partner was created?
Dave
IMO, just as with evolutionists feeling that people that believe in creation don't understand many aspects about evolution, it seems that many proponents for evolution don't understand many aspects of different creationists views, and just as with the evolutionists, there are divided camps of creationists.
One such view is that many creationists agree with gene mutation, changes within species over time, etc., but the major difference is where first life came from -- that many organisms were created and then changed over time to all the species we see today -- that there is change but within limits/parameters, even if some of the changes are viewed as large differences. Further, creationists generally view commonalities in nature as evidence of being created by one creator, much as there can be many types of things made out of clay by one person though each thing is still made of the same clay, and when going into genetics, what may sound like a very small percentage difference in DNA between one species and another is actually a much larger difference than simply looking at a percentile difference reveals.
There are many other views, as well, and likewise there are many strange theories among various camps of evolutionists regarding where first life originated and how, i.e. there being many proponents for panspermia (aliens planting life on the earth), etc...
I've previously spent much time doing research into both sides' views and feel there are generally misunderstandings and misconceptions by both sides -- each trying to simplify the other's views and sometimes setting up straw-men to tumble down. I don't even bother getting into online debates for the most part anymore (as I can't ever recall seeing one side getting the other to agree they are wrong) but rather try to find common views, such as agreeing the WT has messed up a lot of people's families and lives, etc.; it's far better to have fun agreeing on something universally affecting people that can be agreed on, IMO~!
A book I have been planning to read on the subject of evolution is:
DARWINS BLACK BOX: THE BIOCHEMICAL CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTION, by Michael J. Behe
The reviews for this book over at Amazon are interesting to read.
--VM44
When you read Behe's book, VM44, you should also read some criticisms of it. Start with talk.origins.
According to some critics, Behe makes some fundamental errors in his arguments.
AlanF
feel there are generally misunderstandings and misconceptions by both sides -- each trying to simplify the other's views and sometimes setting up straw-men to tumble down
Yes, that's what this thread is about. We often see a lone creationist of some flavor trying to explain why a particular bit of evidence about evolution is wrong, but I can't remember a thread where creationists were stating their views and the evidence for them.
Reading the Watchtower's "creation" book, you get the impression that evolutionists are building a big conspiracy to trick the world into believing their satanic theories. Then you read books by evolutionists and find that it is a well-supported, well-founded, largely accepted understanding of how things came to be.
I generally get my views of how creationists think from similar comments by evolutionists, presenting their views in a "straw man" form that they then kick over. I wanted to see the creationist's views from their own mouths. (I'm guessing http://drdino.com doesn't represent the normal creationist's viewpoint)
Dave
