The evolution & creation dilemma? It’s driving me mad

by Mr. Majestic 31 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Homerovah the Almighty

  I think it would be a good thing to mention too that religions like the JWS. and the many others, intensionally have to fight evolution theory because it has the ability to

  melt and destroy their supposed power and finances, because of that fact do you think they are going to be honest and truthful , do you think you think that they will thoroughly

  examine the evidence with an unbiased and open mind, of course not that would potentially be too risky for obvious reasons. And if there is already complacent fear in their

  sub-conciseness that too will obscure any rational thought and evaluation. Those are the facts of the matter like them or not.
• 

  Mr. Majestic

  Thank for your comments so far. I will look into the links later. Got to pop out now.

  Just a point about the "first cause". It might not be covered in the theory of evolution but surly it is heavily linked to it because where would evolution be without an organism to start with?

  Is there anywhere that covers the "first cause"?
• 

  Awakened07

  Just a point about the "first cause". It might not be covered in the theory of evolution but surly it is heavily linked to it because where would evolution be without an organism to start with?

  Yes, but it isn't covered by the theory of evolution, because the theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that drive the change in populations of species over time. So if one wants to, one can believe that a God created the very first life form, and that the rest (evolution) happened after that. Many evolutionists (like Ken Miller who is in one of the videos I linked to) are theists.

  Is there anywhere that covers the "first cause"?

  Atheists will of course need a different first cause, or rather the other way around; atheists look at the scientific method and how it gives us answers in other areas, and decide to find an answer even here that isn't supernatural. This 'first cause' is called abiogenesis, and is covered in one of the videos in the series I linked to (although there are several competing hypotheses on this - you may want to look at Wikipedia as well for instance). You will need to spend some time researching if you truly want to find out about this, I'm afraid. It's not as easy an answer as "God did it and we know because the Bible says so". I sometimes wish it was just as fast and easy to explain science, but it just isn't. At the same time, that's what makes it fascinating - there are real, well reasoned, elaborate answers to find.
• 

  Leolaia

  Anyone catch that documentary last week on bringing back dinosaurs by genetic engineering? It showed rather well that in addition to all the fossil evidence of transitions between dinosaurs and birds (e.g. feathered dinosaurs, beaked dinosaurs, dinosaurs with teeth, etc.) there is the simple fact that many of the dinosaur genes are still present in birds -- they are just switched off (but which occasionally arise in atavisms) or have been modified to produce avian features. In many cases the genes do indeed produce the features in early development but which are then turned off or interact with other genes which modify these traits. Anyway, the idea is that dinosaurs could maybe be reverse engineered by tinkering with a bird's genes and making traits that would otherwise disappear in development become established. So they already got chickens to develop longer with teeth, and chickens with longer tails, and they are working on reversing the gene that turns scales (still found in the feet) into feathers. The guy interviewed on the program said that the best bird to start with is an emu, which is most conversative already in preserving some dinosaurian traits.
• 

  Mr. Majestic

  Again, many thanks everyone. I know that I have my work cut out, which is quite daunting to say the least, but I am happy to be looking into all of your suggestions and links. I might have to PM some of you from time to time.

  I am glad that a few of you said about the dinosaurs. For me, whenever I was taking on a JW who would be promoting harmony between animals in Eden, I would use the knowledge of the dinosaurs to disprove that point. And the dinosaur that I discussed was also one that had feathers and also hollow bones just the same as birds do.

  Thank you all very much.
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  >> Is there anywhere that covers the "first cause"?

  Another difference between science and religion is that science doesn't claim to have all the answers, nor "The Truth". In the case of the 'first cause' of life, all we have are ideas being batted around. There are some pretty good ideas, but nothing anyone would want to bet their life on.

  One of the cool things about letting go of dogma is the wonder of not knowing stuff. Not individual ignorance, like my appalling lack of knowledge of history. SOMEBODY knows history, and I could read their book and know what they know. But the first cause of life is currently an unknown to EVERYBODY.

  That's kinda neat.

  Dave
• 

  inkling

  I know that I have my work cut out, which is quite daunting to say the least, but I am happy to be looking into all of your suggestions and links.

  I know it feels daunting, but the ground-level stuff is actually
  quite assessable (the links provided are a great start)

  and never forget that this is really important stuff to understand,
  at least on a basic level.

  There are times in life where agnosticism is understandable, but
  just be careful of saying "i don't know" when deep down you mean
  "I don't WANT to know"
• 

  oldflame

  This is my take on creation verses evolution. I think back the last 100 years as we have grown in new technology. Evolutionist believe that man has been on this earth for millions of years. I think about that millions of years and compare it to the last 100 years and I just cannot put it together. We can find buildings etc from several thousand years ago and man has come along ways since the last several thousand years. Just look back to the last 100 years and think about how we have grown. So what for millions of years we lived in caves and lived like heathens ? It just does not fit, you cannot possibly put the puzzle together in this aspect. It would only seem more evident that we have only existed for several thousand years with the way man has advanced.

  Does everyone understand where I am going with this ? I mean does it not seem more logical that man has existed only several thousand years than millions of years ? I feel that mans intelligence and his brain is the same brain that man had many moons ago and if it were true that we evolved rather than created would we not be more advanced than what we are today ? If we advanced this much just in the last hundred years then why would we not be more advanced over a million year period.

  I feel like i am rambling here but I have this idea that evolution cannot be possible. I think that those who believe we evolved rather than created are those who choose not to believe in a higher power and they make this stuff up in order to cover their ideas. It's kind a like the society who make things up to fit their beliefs.

  That's my take and I'm stick in to it !
• 

  Mr. Majestic

  There are times in life where agnosticism is understandable, but
  just be careful of saying "i don't know" when deep down you mean
  "I don't WANT to know"

  I understand that there are ones that could reason that way. But personally I have nothing to lose. It doesn’t matter to me either way or any other way.

  I just really have a need to know what is true, if that is ever attainable. That is all that has ever mattered.
• 

  Leolaia

  oldflame....No one is claiming that "man" had the same intelligence and cognitive ability for "millions of years". H. sapiens is only dated back to 200,000 years ago and the hominids that preceded modern man for "millions of years" had much smaller brains and less complex cognitive ability. Some argue that archaic H. sapiens still lacked some adaptations that arose ca. 60,000 years ago that gave rise to an explosion of technological change and artistic expression. Boats and painting existed about 40,000 years ago. Agriculture, animal husbandry, and the first cities arose about 10,000 years ago. And the wheel and writing arose only about 5,000 years ago. Technology is cumulative (building on earlier and unrelated developments, cf. James Burke's Connections on how this happens) and if it has been accelerating, developing faster and faster, it follows that the further back in time you go, the slower the rate of development was. The rate of technological change we have today, with the newest gadget and device on the market each year, is not at all representative with the entirety of human history, especially before the Industrial Revolution. Finally, what is the measure of man? If it is modern, Western technology, what about societies that have gotten along just fine for all these millennia without it? If the Australian aborigines had a hunter-gatherer lifestyle that worked just fine for them for many millennia, why couldn't it work for people living many millennia before them?