scientists have claimed to have found the missing link between fish and land animals on ellesmere island ,canada.
Are you sure it's not because you were so far out of your intellectual depth in any arguments you had on the subject that you resorted to just copying and pasting from your favourite creationist websites? I guess people can look at your post history and make up their own minds.
They certainly can.
scientists have claimed to have found the missing link between fish and land animals on ellesmere island ,canada.
You'll get used to that. Hooberus is a fundamentalist Christian with no scientific background. If someone posts something he doesn't understand but that upsets his blinkered creationist worldview, he'll look up his favourite web site (answersingenesis.org) and find what he thinks is a rebuttal. There's no point arguing with him as he doesn't understand much of what he posts. But the place wouldn't be the same without him.Anyway, welcome to the board. Great stuff so far.
Comments such as the above are one reason why I try to no longer dialogue with the evolutionists here anymore. Thanks for the reminder.
scientists have claimed to have found the missing link between fish and land animals on ellesmere island ,canada.
And also, statements like this one drive me crazy "Where did they come from? An accidental big bang from nothingness?" The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. It has everything to do with cosmology. They are not related at all. But, why would the big bang have to be an accident? Do you equate belief in the big bang with athiesm? Why? What evidence do you have? What does the bible say about the mechanism that God used to create the universe? Why dont you like the big bang?
"Evolution comprises all the states of development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Theodosius Dobzhansky
Science, 155:409-415, 1967
And though Funkyderek already addressed the statement that "DNA is set in stone", AK also said that "there is still no science to backup the evolution of DNA to progress to a more complex species." If the following REAL LIFE example does not completely prove these two statements to be wrong, then I do not know what will. The example has to do with bacteria. As everyone posting here no doubt knows, bacteria are known to consume anything from crude oil to our own tissues. What they can or can not consume depends upon the instructions contained in their genome. In 1975, Japanese scientists reported finding a bacteria that could even consume Nylon. This would not seem to be too extraordinary of a finding except for the fact that Nylon is completely synthetic. It did not exist in nature prior to 1935 when it was manufactured by Dupont. So where did the genetic information come from? The bacteria did not lose the ability to consume what it was able to consume previously, but it gained the ability to consume this new, synthetic, material in addition to what it could consume previously. This new ability within the bateria Flavobacterium is the result of an additional Thymine nucleotide to be added to the DNA sequence of this bacteria. In my mind, this proves that not only is DNA NOT set in stone, it also proves that order can arise from chaos, and that evolution does occur in order to cause one species to progress into a more complex one. Because, just because the bacteria evolved on the micro level, it still became more complex in the process. This is a real life example of the one thing that creationists insist that evolution can not do, add new genetic information, and yet here it is! The genome for this bacteria actually grew and became more complex by the addition of the Thymine nucleotide! This really isnt any surprise to scientists and other people that like to actually learn, but in my mind this is proof on the most basic level that creationists for some reason insist that they need...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm
.
.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0404order.asp.
i'm totally amazed.
i gave that un report to my (hardcore jw to the extreme max, but in a nice way) aunt, and she didn't speak of it for several days.
when she said nothing, i knew i'd gotten somewhere.. today she finally spoke up.
Note that (in the above letter) even the WT admits: "Still, the Criteria for Association with DPI contain some language that we cannot subscribe to."
Therefore, the issue is the specific "Criteria for Association with DPI" which from what I have read seems to have been the same in the year when the WT became associated as when they became disassociated.
since i joined the forum a short while ago i was confronted by the above scandal, hadn't known about it , haven't been in touch with anything to do with the org for a while.
so i've read all the posts and questions and i think iget the drift, but what i want to kno now is why did they do it?
i hear their excuse of the library card, but that's obviously a load of tosh.
(1) The NGO agreement was to support the principles of the UN charter and its work, but ONLY as defined as being “in accordance with” the WTS’ own “aims and purposes.
Do you have primary source documentation for this? If so please provide.
Some of the other points were responded to here: http://www.geocities.com/thewatchtowerstudy/un1.htm
and apparently he still believe in it go figuire??
orbi
http://www.jehovah-has-become-king.com/?ovraw=jehovah&ovkey=jehovah&ovmtc=standard
in 1989 the watchtower society published a 32-page booklet entitled "should you believe in the trinity?
" the aim of this publication was to discredit the christian doctrine of the triune nature of god.
the method that the society used to accomplish this goal was to quote from a plethora of resources, both secular and religious, such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, books and historical literature written by individual authors.
Hooberus: You don't honestly expect me wade through all of that stuff do you? If you disagree with me, tell me why, and I'll reply to you.
I posted the link for those who are interested or questioning, not to generate a dialogue with you specifically.
in 1989 the watchtower society published a 32-page booklet entitled "should you believe in the trinity?
" the aim of this publication was to discredit the christian doctrine of the triune nature of god.
the method that the society used to accomplish this goal was to quote from a plethora of resources, both secular and religious, such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, books and historical literature written by individual authors.
RevFrank: If the WTS does misrepresent the writers that they quote, maybe they're following the example set by the gospel writer Matthew, who BLATANTLY misrepresents the OT writers that he quotes in trying to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. Compare Matt 2:15 with Hosea 11:1, and Matthew 2:18 with Jeremiah 31:15. If Jesus really was the Messiah why did Matthew have to resort to such obvious 'spin'? Are you going to criticise Matthew just as severely as you criticise the WTS?
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof0.html
compare: "1914" and "no-blood" bedrock doctrines of the wbts:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mormon16feb16,0,5561316.story?coll=la-home-headlines
from the time he was a child in peru, the mormon church instilled in jose a. loayza the conviction that he and millions of other native americans were descended from a lost tribe of israel that reached the new world more than 2,000 years ago.. .
BOM describes a migration from Asia at the time of Tower of Babel - that population numbers millions by time the Israelites arrive (numbering in the tens.) The Israelites are described as having cities way before they would have been able to breed that many people which suggests an immediate mingling with other people. The Israelites ae pared back by war several times to only a few hundred and these then intermingle with a group of principally phoenicians with very little Israelite blood. In all this time there is nothing that says that there weren't migrations from Asia at a constant rate. All in all I'd be stunned if you found any Israelite blood in the US according to a strict reading of the BOM. On the other hand the author of the BOM (assuming it wasn't Joseph Smith on trippy time) didn't make any distinction between races when referring to different groups - in fact it seems that the major distinction is political (i.e. if a city changes hands in battle so its citizens change designator - not the way we would normally describe it) so to that style of author you could easily claim Israelite heritage for all when in reality its a notional concept.
