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:Cars do not reproduce and do not pass down heritable traits via DNA so the analogy is false. Any competent archeologist/biologist knows the difference between human artifacts and biological, reproducing structures.
rem, an anaolgy does not have to be parallel in all ways in order to make a specific point. My analogy was accurate with regars to the specific point that I was making.
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 .
Liberty said:Tadpoles become frogs, fish-like limbless human embryos suspended in liquid change gradually into air breathing limbed land animals,
tadpoles becoming frogs,as well a human-embroys becoming mature humans is not evolution, but the development of structures by pre-existing DNA. By the way some of the evolutionary "embryo evidence" was based on fake diagrams.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1339.asp
 |
Above, top row: Haeckel’s drawings of several different embryos, showing incredible similarity in their early ‘tailbud’ stage. Many modern evolutionists no longer claim that the human embryo repeats the adult stages of its alleged evolutionary ancestors, but point to Haeckel’s drawings (top row) to claim that it repeats the embryonic stages. However, even this alleged support for evolution is now revealed as being based on faked drawings. The embryo photos used in this article were kindly supplied by Dr Michael K. Richardson. They originally appeared in M.K. Richardson et al., ‘There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development’, Anatomy and Embryology, 196(2):91–106, 1997, © Springer-Verlag GmbH & Co., Tiergartenstrasse, 69121 Heidelberg, Germany. Reproduced here with permission. |
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 .
Liberty, my automobile analogy was proper with regard to the point that I was making about evidence for creation not being dependant on an extant visible creator. If all historical records were lost about automotive factories and in the year 3,000 Ad someone came across the preserved remains of my truck, they would still recognize evidence of it being created from the truck itself.
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 .
abaddon said:Time scale. Extinctions. Slow development of complexity. No evidence of global flood. Order of appearance of life forms is wrong.
What do you mean by this?
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 .
Abaddon said:As for the assurances of peer review you give, well, I needed a laugh. First of all, you don't actually provide any links to evidence (all I said was I wouldn't pay attention to non-peer reviewed material), instead seeking to show how peer reviewed (some) creationist material is. Then, amusingly, all the publications or conferences you refer to are organised and run by creationists. Can't creationist scientific articles withstand peer reveiw by people other than creationists? Are the arguements too complex to understand?
Such review is not worth a tinkers damn; you are effectively saying, 'Well, the society have provided us with all the information we need'.
If the work was good enough to withstand stringent peer review, like say publication in Nature, it would no doubt be published in Nature. As far as I am aware, this doesn't happen very often. So, if you can refer me to supporting information that is published in internationally accepted scientific journals, I'll be more impressed. But you still haven't supplied any theory, or any evidence to support the theory. Dull.
abaddon, your evolutionary magazines do the same thing that you accuse creationists of: For example nature is an evolutionary magazine run by evolutionists, does this invalidate its peer review process?
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 .
More avoidance. Are you ever going to provide a clear explaination of your theory of god? Or is your failure to do this due to the fact you know you can't provide a theory without me and others having great fun flying rings round it?
Abaddon, when you bring up subjects like "the theory of god" which is not necessary to prove in oder for creation to be true, you should not then accuse others of being evasive and avoiding issues.
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 .
Abaddon said: The theory of god fails to explain why god is not subject to observation, so you can't really make to much of that point, especially as the lack of proof is something you have (yawn) consistantly failed to answer. However, there is evidence supporting the theory of macro-evolution. What evidence do you have to support the theory of god? Yet another thing you've failed to answer. What's your excuse going to be this time?
Your argument about showing that "god is not subject to observation" and "what evidence do you have to support the theory of god" is not the issue. Everyone agrees that god is not subject to observation. Also the evidence for the theory of the existence of God is another topic.
The issue here is "Evolution or Creation" The evidence for the creation of any object, from cars to computers is independant of the evidence of a creator for them existing. For example I drive a 1988 Chevrolet pick-up. I did not observe its creation, nor do I even have a clue of who the particular individuals were who may have made it. However I can appeal to present observations about the truck to show evidence that it was created as opposed to evolving from roller-skates. Hense to show evidence that it was created I do not need to "prove the theory of General Motors" or show that "General Motors exists" This same logic can be applied to biological structures, as earlier I said:
"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."
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 .
earlier I said:
"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)."
to which abaddon replied:
Speciation has been observed at least five times in this century, most recent being a train station car park in
then abaddon added the rest of the paragraph:
... England. As you well know, macro-evolution is not subject to observation because of the time scales involved. This is understandable and explained by the theory. The theory of god fails to explain why god is not subject to observation, so you can't really make to much of that point, especially as the lack of proof is something you have (yawn) consistantly failed to answer. However, there is evidence supporting the theory of macro-evolution. What evidence do you have to support the theory of god? Yet another thing you've failed to answer. What's your excuse going to be this time?My response still stands abaddon, speciation is not macro-evolution. And as even your own paragraph states "macro-evolution is not subject to observation . . . " Thus we are in agreement about the unobservable nature of macro-evolution. Therfore your argument about the observable nature of speciation (which everyone accepts) does not change the fact that macro-evolution is unobservable.
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 .
Very well rem, I'll take it that you do understand that micro-evolution is included in most creation models, and that your comments relate to falsification issues. I hope if time allows to post some information on the falsifaction issue.
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 .
Abaddon said: Please try to support your beliefs in an even-handed fashion. As has been demonstrated quite adequately on this thread, the problem with many creationist websites is that they don't even know what peer-review is, which is why charlatans like Dr. Jerry are regarded as credible. Because of this I will regard any link to a site that uses non-peer reviewed material or quotes from non-peer reviewed material as you view the Book of Mormon.
The following is from AIG:
In addition to our carefully checked family magazine Creation, our refereed journal TJ (right) has become, along with the Creation Research Society Quarterly, a major forum for creationists to be able to formally present/debate various positions. Creationists are encouraged to present articles/papers for peer review and possible publication so that theories, evidence etc., can be tested by mainstream creationist experts in their field.
We also wholeheartedly endorse the regular Pittsburgh International Conference on Creationism, a forum at which creationist scientists can present and publish their concepts following peer-review, submitting them to the ‘iron-sharpening-iron’ process which is so vital in any scientific endeavour.
