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

  rem said:

  I'm afraid I do not agree that the photos don't show substantial similarities. Evolutionary theory would predict that vertebrates would have a more similar looking embryology with other vertebrates than with invertebrates. That's exactly what we see (invertebrate embryos look much different).

  Yes, and creation by a common creator would also predict "that vertebrates would have a more similar looking embryology with other vertebrates than with invertebrates. That's exactly what we see (invertebrate embryos look much different)."
• 
  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, I'm tired of your insulting attitude. Also it is simply not profitable for me to take the time to untwist all of your accusations and faulty reasonings.
• 
  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

  Liberty said:

  The fact that you didn't grasp the meaning of my tadpole to frog example as proof that life forms can and do change from one form to another also illustrates your inability to grasp the most basic modern biological concepts.

  Yes, Liberty everone agrees that life forms can and do change in the sense of tadpoles turning into frogs, and human babies turning into adult humans. However macro-evolution is a different kind of change in which one basic type of creature with its DNA is transformed into another basic type of creature. For example humans coming from amphibians over a long period of time.

  Also your last phrase that I have an "inability to grasp the most basic modern biological concepts" is innacurate as macro-evolution is a different process than tadpoles turning into frogs.
• 
  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:

  I respectfully disagree that your analogy was relevant. There are distinct differences between human artifacts and biological structures - so much so that they are analogous only in the most superficial of ways. True, an analogy doesn't have to be parallel in all ways, but it should be parallel in the important ways, otherwise it's a fallacy of false analogy.

  Liberty said:

  The fact that you can't see the difference between finding ancient artifacts which are logically atributable to human manufacture and comparing this to finding ancient artifacts which are claimed to be made by invisible spirit entities speaks volumes for your state of mind. If I discover an ancient ceramic art piece but can't document that it was made by a specific potter, Ogg the clay worker whose name was lost to history, I don't automatically assume that it, therefore, must have been made by invisible super beings. Human potters today make very similar objects to ancient ceramic items, some ancient pots even retain human fingerprints, we know ancient cultures used them from the evidence found in other works of art or from the fact that such artifacts litter old dwelling sites so even if we can't prove who specifically made the items we conclude from our evidence and known experience that such ancient items are most likely of human manufacture. A three thousand year old truck found in the future would easily fall into this same category.

  Folks, even if you disagree with my analogy can you at least try to see the point that I was trying to make with it?
• 
  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:

  Beyond that, yes, the mtDNA dating is based on assumptions regarding mtDNA mutation rates, thus the margin of error. There is no reason, however, to expect an error so eggregious that the dating would reflect thousands of years rather than hundreds of thousands.

  These assumptions regarding mtDNA mutation rates, with their margin of error calculations are based on the assumption that humans/chimpanzees shared a common ancestor millions of years ago. However if this did not happen, then not only would the assumed mutation rates be potentially in error, but also the "margin of error" calculation (which is also based on the assumption of a shared common ancestor who lived millions of years ago) would also be invalidated.

  There is a tendency when people see figures such as "confidence limits of 317,000 and 741,000 years" to assume that the creature in question must be at least as old as the lower figure. However this is not necessarily true as even the lower figure is based on assumptions of a shared common ancestor living millions of years ago.
• 
  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: The dating of orangutang fossils is not based on evolutionary interpretations. The dating of fossils is done by several independently calibrated and verified means.

  My comment did not directly relate to the "dating of orangutan fossils" themselves, but to the fact that the alledged human/chimpanzee divergence date of 4 plus million years was calibrated based on oranguntan fossils.

  earlier I said:

  It seems to me that all of these dates have as an anchor point the alledged human/chimpanzee divergance of 4 plus million years ago.

  Interestingly this date was itself based on the assumption of evolution calibrated based on orang-utan fossils !
• 
  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

  It seems to me that all of these dates have as an anchor point the alledged human/chimpanzee divergance of 4 plus million years ago.

  Interestingly this date was itself based on the assumption of evolution calibrated based on orang-utan fossils !

  So the dates of 200,000 for "eve" and 853,000; 365,000 for "neanderthals" etc. are ultimately based on an evolutionary interpretation of orang-utans !
• 
  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

  funkyderek said:

  Hooberus, I don't understand. You believe that evolution is effective enough to change an organism's genome enough so that it can't interbreed with a close relative, but not that this can happen multiple times? What do you mean by macro-evolution beyond speciation? If species can diverge a little bit in a short time, then why can't they diverge a lot over a longer period?

  Your position seems to be rather like saying that you believe acorns can grow into small oak trees but not big oak trees because you've never seen that happen.

  funkyderek, acorns growing into small oak trees and then into larger oak trees is the logical out- working of the same continous process. I (time allowing) will post why the micro to macro theory is not similar to this in that they generally involve opposite processes and not the out- working of the same process over longer periods of time.
• 
  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

  But wait — there's more

  When evolutionists say that the recapitulation theory is false, they usually do not mean to admit that comparing embryos gives no evidence of common ancestry. In fact, they still frequently highlight the assumed similarities between embryos in their early stages (called embryonic homology) as evidence for evolution. This assumption is based on the idea that such similarities are ‘common knowledge’.5

  This alleged similarity of embryos has for years been resting, consciously or unconsciously, on a set of 24 of Haeckel's drawings which he first published in 1866 in his Generalle Morphologie der Organismen, and then repeated in 1874 in his more popular Anthropogenie (Click to see 67k JPG image). These purport to show embryos of fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, pig, cow, rabbit, and human in three stages of development.

  The various stages, particularly the earlier ones, show substantial similarity. Ever since these drawings appeared, it has been assumed that they have given us something close to the truth about embryos of vertebrate species. So much so that they still appear in textbooks and popular works on evolution.6 , 7

  In fact, no one has bothered to check — until now. It turns out that Haeckel's fraud was much worse than anyone realised. It did not just affect the idea of recapitulation, it turns out that the similarities are much, much less than anyone thought.

  The above excerpt is taken from the same arcticle. While the drawaings show substantial similarities, the actual photo's don't.
• 
  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:

  Also, the Haeckel drawings you are referring to and the evolutionary theories about them are probably not what you think they are. The embryos are very similar as the photographs show, but Haeckel went further and proposed that all animals went through the various stages of evolution during embryonic development. We know, of course, that this is not true, yet the striking similarities between the many different types of embryos is a testament to evolution.

  rem, while the faked drawings are similar, I don't think that the actual photo's are. If you haven't already read the whole arcticle as it is brief.