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 .
Also, were organisms like bacteria directly created or did they evolve from non-living precursers?
Creation predicts that they would due to complexity have to have been created.
If they weren't created please explain their origin using natural laws. How did the long polymers of DNA or RNA link? Also, how did the original bases get ordered?
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 .
rem said:
Evolution, on the other hand, has evidence that supports it. This is why evolutionary theory is able to make correct predictions and has helped us understand biology better, including how microorganisms become resistant to medicine. Creation theory has made no worthwhile predictions for science.
microorganisms resistance to medicine is of couse micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is accepted by both sides of the creation/evolution debate.
this just came to mind...... if jesus were perfect, the son of god (or god...depending on your view) why did he not tell anyone the earth was round?
why did it take thousands of years for people to know and understand that the earth is round?
wouldn't it have been easier for christianity to spread if they knew a long time ago that the earth was round?.
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 .
The following site provides a response to the talkoriginsite:
.
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..
the following is taken from an icr arcticle:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-105b.htm
The DNA was recovered from the bone of the first Neanderthal discovered, an individual so riddled with rickets and old age that his legs had bowed. The DNA was mitochondrial DNA, not from the cell nucleus, and only 379 base pairs out of 16,500 (thus about 2%) of the total. It was found to differ from standard human mtDNA in 27 locations. Since modern human mtDNA differs on average in only eight locations within this stretch of 379, it was concluded that Neanderthals were probably not closely related to humans.
However, modern human mtDNA varies beyond the average, with the extremes statistically overlapping the Neanderthal measurement. Since all modern humans are interfertile, this measurement does not necessarily place them outside the family.
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 .
rem said:2) God(s) created life through special creation and erased all of the evidence and made it look like evolution was used. In this case god is a liar.
God didn't "erased all the eivdence" for creation (much is listed on the site I gave.) and made it look like "evolution was used" (Cindy Crawford doesn't look like a product of evolution to me). So you claim that believing in creation makes God a liar is false.
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 .
rem said:Hooberus,
You are putting theology ahead of observation. This is the same thing the Catholic church did to refute Galileo's helocentric model. They were wrong. This is the same thing the Mormons do today when they try to prove that ancient jewish civilizations existed in the Americas. They are wrong.
The bible by itself is just an ancient book written by superstitious men. Without evidence, there is no reason to put its words above observation.
Rem, while creation itself was not observed by man, the site I listed appeals to observations from the present world to show evidence (from science) for creation. Also, macro-evolution was itself not subject to direct observation (no one observed fish turning into people over millions of years).
Unlike the Book of Mormon, which has virtually no archaelogical support whatsoever, the Bible has been generally supported by archaelogy. This is not to say that all Bible/archaelogy issues have been reconciled, but that there is a general agreement between the two.
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 .
Francois, not only is macro-evolution completely unbiblical (For example in the Bible Whales came before land mammals such as cattle; whereas evolution teaches that Whales evolved from land mammals similar to cattle, or wolves.) , but it is also actually a poor way to create new stuctures. Why take millions of years of trial, death, and evolutionary dead ends, to create a structure such as the eye? In fact the "God of macro-evolution" basically sat back and watched things make themselves.
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 .
dottie, There are many evolution sites, as well as several good creationist websites such as the Creation Research Society.
http://www.creationresearch.org/
Look at both sides and decide for yourself. Personally, I find that the hard facts of science are in general agreement with special creation.
.
is there any basis for these claims?.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/index.html
Abaddon said:But returning to your original point, the strawman attack that "if the jesusneverexisted site wished to disprove the existence of one of the other Jesus's that the site would have listed Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure along with the others", from the above you can see it to be untrue, as bar the suspect paragraph, there's not the evidence to list Jesus with the other Jesuses.
I plan on listing more evidence showing Jesus to be historical. But what I have already listed is probably more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth than for most of the other persons listed on the "jesusneverexisted.com" site. Also, I verified the quotes from Josephus (the James qoute) and Tacitus from a hard volume.
