Which Fits the Facts... Evolution or Creation?

by dorayakii 25 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  DATA-DOG

  Is a scientist disingenous when he theorizes that multiple universes are a possibility, because we can't know for sure if they exist or not? I think not. There are those who do not want to believe in evolution, however you define it. They will never listen to anything that you say because they find the idea offensive and God dishonoring. Then there are those who do not want to believe in God no matter what, however you describe Him/Her/Them. They will never listen because they believe that the idea of God is insulting to their intelligence and disagrees with science.

  Both groups have a bias, a filter that all information must pass through. Very few can look outside of themselves and past an " either this or that " belief. For example some like to speak of " junk DNA ". If 10 years down the road you understand what it was really for then it is not junk. It remindds me off my Dad working on anything. There were always left over parts. Since he didn't know what they were for, logically they were junk.

  Just because science does not currently have the knowledge to fully understand everything about DNA, does not make some of it junk. It would not make me disingenous to say that it could be useful after all because science doesn't know everything, and so cannot prove it's junk. I am also not disingenous for believing in life being seeded on this planet by an intelligence that we cannot currently understand with our present technology.

  The problem is dogma on both sides. Science versus God. God versus Science. I won't discount science because of man-made religions. Neither will I discount the existence of a creator because of limited human technology.
• 

  Satanus

  Evolution, of course. The universe is a growing thing, w both areas of high entropy and areas of low entropy. That is similar to plant growth cycles which contain birth and death. I see the universe as an organic thing. Thus, no outside influence was needed for humans to appears. We are an end product of a long line of evolutionary organisms. That line tracks back to the earth, itself, which almost for sure, produced the first living particle. I say almost for sure, because of the possibility, but unliklyhood that it came from some where else in the universe.

  I think that science may be using the wrong qualifier in their search for origins. They search for the origin of the first 'life'. I think that searching and testing for awareness would be more useful. It would allow for a continuum from what they call life, on back to whatever particles were its precursers. The life qualifier ends up in a dead end. Using awareness instead is seen as woowoo. But, you never know, scientists may get tired of being in a dead end, and may decide to look at things in another way.

  S
• 

  Satanus

  I mean, take the virus. Have scientists decided if its alive of dead? The latest is that it's dead. Yet, it reacts when it comes in contact w a suitable host.

  S
• 

  cofty

  Then there are those who do not want to believe in God no matter what - DD

  Rational people will follow the evidence wherever it leads. So far there is zero evidence for god.

  But the question is not about god v science its about the fact of evoution whether or not you also believe in a god.

  For example some like to speak of " junk DNA ".

  Its not a useful term but there is 45% of our genome of 4 billion base pairs that we can say with certainty was never part of any intelligent design.

  We know exactly how it originated - transposons, ERVs, pseudogens, LINES and SINES are all the result of copying errors and provide indisputable evidence for common ancestry.

  The fact you use the phrase "junk DNA" suggests you didn't read the common ancestry thread.

  Which books on evolution have you read Data Dog?
• 

  cofty

  scientists may get tired of being in a dead end - satanus

  They aren't. The progress in abiogenesis is very exciting.
• 

  Phizzy

  Here in the U.K we are a secular lot. last night on telly I was watching comedian Jimmy Carr, and he asked the audience, "any Creationists in tonight ?"

  no one spoke up, he then went on to succinctly outline the kind of person who believes such rubbish., adding "...or Americans as we call them". Which was a bit uncalled for, but he is constantly trying to shock, and succeeds a lot.

  The problem we have here is that there are a few C's trying to establish their own schools to teach unfounded nonsense, I hope they are prevented from doing so.

  Evolution is an established fact, no problem, even Jehovah's Witnesses believe in it, as they claim that all the present fauna and most flora have evolved since Noah's flood. This rate of evolutionary development is about 16 times faster than that which Evolution science establishes, so JW's believe in super-fast Evolution. I guess Creationists are lumbered with that as the only explanation too.

  As for Abiogenesis, it is a case of "watch this space" as Cofty says, progress in this area of study goes on apace, not because those naughty scientists wish to prove there is no god, simply because if we can fully understand how life started we will be better placed to understand living things now.

  Just a side note for U.K viewers of the BBC: and anyone else able to access it, they are screening Dr. Brian Cox's latest prog. on Sunday eve. and it contains some stuff about the Evolution of the eye, I wonder if Cantleave was a consultant to the programme ?