hooberus

Joined

• started 119 topics
• posted 2,517 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hooberus

• 
  172

  Evolution or Creation??

  by dottie in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  well i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.

  myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.

  so i do find it confusing sometimes .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Abaddon said:

  I will enjoy reading you explanation of how the fossil record is explained by Scripture.

  So why don't you believe the fossil record to be compatible with Scripture?
• 
  172

  Evolution or Creation??

  by dottie in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  well i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.

  myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.

  so i do find it confusing sometimes .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  abaddon said:

  For all your attacks on detail of evolutionary theory, you have yet to demonstrate an alternative.

  I at least direct my attacks on evolutionary theory while you usually direct your attacks on your debate opponets personally.
• 
  172

  Evolution or Creation??

  by dottie in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  well i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.

  myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.

  so i do find it confusing sometimes .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Abaddon said:

  You object when your knowledge is shown to be incomplete, yet do the same to others. AGAIN you have a double standard.

  My pointing out the error in rem's statement to the effect that "there is no need for micro-evolution in the creation theory" is not a double standard.

  • Creationists very frequently discuss micro-evolution as part of their model.
  • Micro-evolution is a basic principal in creationist literature.
  • I have discussed the issue of micro-evolution as related to the creation model with rem at length in another thread.
  • rem has claimed in the past to be familiar with both sides of the debate as well as the literature from both sides.

  With these facts in mind his comment on micro-evolution as related to the creation model was very inaccurate and hense my comment "We have discussed this on previous threads. If you know about both sides of the creation-evolution debate then you should know this." was not out of line.
• 
  172

  Evolution or Creation??

  by dottie in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  well i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.

  myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.

  so i do find it confusing sometimes .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Abaddon said:

  And this is where the faults of your philosophy are highlighted hooberus. Yes, I agree that macro-evolution is completely un-Biblical. For that matter, micro-evolution is completely un-Biblical

  macro-evolution was itself not subject to direct observation

  Speciation has been observed at least five times this century, most recent case being in a train station car park in

  Abaddon, speciation is not macro-evolution !
• 
  126

  DNA and Man's origin

  by D wiltshire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.

  kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  The following is taken from an arcticle on how evolutionists came up with the divergence dates for neanderthals. It appears that the long dates are based on the assumption of an ape-human common ancestor, hense the dates should not be used as evidence against a recent Biblical Eve.

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4218tj_v12n1.asp

  To estimate the time when the most recent ancestral sequence common to the Neandertal and modern human mtDNA sequences existed, we used an estimated divergence date between humans and chimpanzees of 4–5 million years ago and corrected the observed sequence differences for multiple substitutions at the same nucleotide site. This yielded a date of 550,000 to 690,000 years before present for the divergence of the Neandertal mtDNA and contemporary human mtDNAs. When the age of the modern human mtDNA ancestor is estimated using the same procedure, a date of 120,000 to 150,000 years is obtained, in agreement with previous estimates. Although these dates rely on the calibration point of the chimpanzee-human divergence and have errors of unknown magnitude associated with them, they indicate that the age of the common ancestor of the Neandertal sequence and modern human sequences is about four times greater than that of the common ancestor of modern human mtDNAs.39
• 
  126

  DNA and Man's origin

  by D wiltshire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.

  kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  While technically abiogenesis could be considered as being separate from evolution, this does not change the fact that the creation model explains both the origin and similarities of DNA.
• 
  126

  DNA and Man's origin

  by D wiltshire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.

  kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  rem said:

  That's the difference with Creation and Evolution. Creation only has evidence that can be interpreted as consistent with it. Evolution has evidence to support it.

  Actually rem, while the DNA similarities can be interpreted as being consistent with both models (because both models predict similarities), the fact that only the creation model can accurately explain the origin of DNA itself shows that the creation model is supported by the evidence, whereas evolution is not.
• 
  172

  Evolution or Creation??

  by dottie in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  well i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.

  myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.

  so i do find it confusing sometimes .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  rem said:

  Bacteria and other simple organisms evolved from other living precursers. Where and how the original self-replicating molecules formed is not known and is not the realm of evolution but abiogenesis. God could have made the original self-replicating molecule, but from then on the evidence supports evolution, not special creation of all later life forms.

  rem, you seem to admit that creation is at least possible on this level. In fact since self-replication is so complex it would appear that creation should be considered as the preferred explanation. Thus a prediction of creation seems to be supported by the evidence.
• 
  172

  Evolution or Creation??

  by dottie in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  well i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.

  myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.

  so i do find it confusing sometimes .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  (refering to micro-evolution) rem said:

  But evolutionary theory predicts this and creation does not. In fact, there is no need for micro-evolution in the creation theory. Creation theory does not enhance our knowledge of micro-evolution in any way.

  Creation theory does predict micro-evolution. Creationists use micro-evolution to explain the rapid diversity of animals from fewer created kinds both originaly, and after the flood. We have discussed this on previous threads. If you know about both sides of the creation-evolution debate then you should know this.
• 
  126

  DNA and Man's origin

  by D wiltshire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.

  kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Most scientists on both sides of the creation/evolution debate agree that modern humans and neanderthals share a common homo-sapian/human ancestor (Though evolutionists believe this ancestor to be archaic).

  The difference primarily relates to dating this ancestor. The arcticle by Earnest gave a set of dates between 853,000 to 365,000 years ago. I would be interesting to see if these dates were calculated based on assumptions of humans and apes sharing a common ancestor. Thus if the dates are based on this assumption, then the dates would be invalidated if humans decended from created humans and not from a long evolutionary process in which we share a common ancestor with the apes. and this common ancestor itself evolved from ancient fish etc.