by badboy 52 Replies latest jw friends

  • skeptic2

    Hi restrangled, I posted these comments on another thread, but I think they are applicable here too:

    I can only think that you don't fully understand what evolutionary theory says, because if you did, you'd see how beautifully simple and obvious it is.

    Books I own that I'd recommend:

    (human evolution)The Complete Idiot's Guide to Human Prehistory

    (evolution in general)Evolution and the Myth of Creationism

    Both are intended for the layman and provide good jumping off points for further research.

    The scientific community would be very interested to know your alternative hypothesis and the evidence you have for it, if you have one and you don't mind sharing it with us.

    Evolutionary theory is a well-tested explanation of all known evidence (that being the definition of a theory). Therefore if you have new evidence that evolutionary theory cannot explain, or that your hypothesis explains better, and this can be indepedently verified, you will be personally responsible for advancing the state of scientific knowledge.

  • greendawn

    Do fossils disprove creation? I don't see how. Yes life organisms do progress from the simpler to the more complex but that doesn't necessarily disprove a creator and biblically there is no determination of time lengths for prehuman creation, except for YECs (young earth creationists) which I am not. As for human existence Biblical chronology gives for it an age of 7500 years according to the Septuagint version.

    In addition ALL mainstream Christian religions oppose evolution and the fossil record actually disproves the evolution theory by failing to provide any of the millions of conjectured inbetween species that bridge the gap between relatively similar species that are actually present in the fossil record, alas in it we find species appearing suddenly and fully formed without evolutionary ancestors. Here the creationists are not misleading anyone.

    It will be a big day when the evolutionists find a reptilian scale in the process of becoming a feather or the species that bridge the gap between a wolf like creature (ancestor of the whale) and the fish like creature that is the whale. It's a massive transformation in anatomy don't you think? A wolf becoming a fish, long after a fish decided to become a wolf.

    As for a 20 million in one chance that's nothing compared to the odds of life developing out of inanimate matter.


    Is Jesus Christ the bread of life that came down from heaven or did he originate from below, from a monkey like this?

  • ballistic

    As a child I had a healthy interest in rocks and collected fossils. As an even younger child I had a collection of plastic dinosaurs. Questions like the age of rocks \ carbon dating \ creative days and so on never bothered me because I would play a mind trick like, "we don't fully know all the details", or "god could make it appear that way", or "science could have it wrong"... I think being brainwashed allows such fluffy thinking.

  • Qcmbr

    Of course. If there is any truth in religion it must square with the facts (unless we are in a matrix like world :)) We have two facts that seem in complete contradiction - the genealogy of Jesus and its implied timeline back to creation and the record of rocks and fossils. When two idealogical ideas come face to face we must realise that both cannot be correct (nor must both be). Since God is not wandering around proving himself then we are left to find answers ourselves and facing the honest conclusion that either the bible is not to be understood literally or that our interpretation is wrong. Those who reject the Jewish God plump for the bible as pure fiction when it comes to the creation stories just as we would regard the creation tales of other non-dominant cultures such as the Mayan/Zulu/Norse and so on. Those who accept are forced to accept that our interpretation is probably incorrect. Since all Christians and Jews are well accustomed to regarding all other competing scriptural interpretations as wrong we are forced to the conclusion that most if not all interpretations of our own are also incorrect relying as they do upon the intellect and reasoning of the biased and fallible mind. The problem is not generally with scripture but the dogmatic assertion that someone actually understands it. I for example, read 1st Genesis as an obvious symbolic account of a spiritual creation - because it backs up my a priori belief. To a biblical historian however, Genesis 1 and 2 are two different versions of the same myth stuck together by someone. Again to a JW Genesis 1 and 2 are two viewpoints on the same physical creative process. What goes wrong however, is when we become confused with the concepts of 'faith without doubt' and 'intelligence and questioning' - when we make a statement that becomes a matter of faith rather than a point of discussion we paint ourselves into a corner of a room and get stuck. The view christian leaders and their followers want is one of certainty , black and white, discussion is dangerous and any divergence from orthodoxy bad. To sum up we must accept that if we are to continue to use the scriptures as more than a religious myth we must go back and re-interpret the scriptures as the facts arrive rather than trying to attack the facts and shoehorn them into our interpretation. P.S. I'm still a creationist but I accept most of the tenets of evolution.

  • greendawn

    "I'm still a creationist but I accept most of the tenets of evolution."

    QCMBR what exactly does that mean? Is there an intelligent creator or not?

  • gaiagirl

    "Yes life organisms do progress from the simpler to the more complex but that doesn't necessarily disprove a creator" Exactly what Darwin himself said in his famous book, in fact he specifically stated that the process was initiated by a Creator. "In addition ALL mainstream Christian religions oppose evolution" Oops, the Catholic Church has stated that there is no objection to evolution. Hard to get more mainstream than that. Its more accurate to state that most Christians in the World (as opposed to, say, in Kansas) either accept evolution based on the evidence, or have no objection to evolution. Those Christians who do oppose evolution are primarily members of conservative fundamentalist sects, like Jehovahs Witnesses (but not limited to them) "It will be a big day when the evolutionists find a reptilian scale in the process of becoming a feather or the species that bridge the gap between a wolf like creature (ancestor of the whale) and the fish like creature that is the whale." Both have been observed, first in Archeopteryx, with is crude feathers unlike the feathers found in modern birds, as well as its beak full of teeth and claws on its wings. Archeopteryx is clearly a lizard on its way to becoming a bird, and has been viewed as such for well over 100 years. More recently, in Velociraptor, which better preserved fossils have shown to possess feathers, further solidifying the link between reptile and bird. This is why the first Jurassic Park movie did not show feathers (because the better fossils had not yet been found), and the later sequels did show them (because those films were made after the better fossils had been uncovered). As for the whales, there is a VERY complete chain of fossils, beginning with Mesonychids, the wolf-like ancestor, continuing through Ambulocetus, which is something like a crocodile (mostly aquatic, still able to walk on land), through Rodhocetus (like a seal), and through several other forms of whale which are now extinct, but clearly existed in the past. Further, modern whales STILL have the genes, now recessive, for rear limbs, and some are still caught with rear limbs. For more detail on whale evolution, read "At the Waters Edge" by Carl Zimmer "It's a massive transformation in anatomy don't you think? A wolf becoming a fish, long after a fish decided to become a wolf." Actually, whales are not fish, but mammals. Fish have gills and can extract oxygen from the water. Whales have lungs, just like their mammalian ancestors, and must surface to breathe. Fish swim by bending their spines left-to-right, while whales swim by bending their spines up-and-down, just as their mammalian ancestors did while running. Further, we can see intermediate steps of similar "land-back-to-water" evolution in creatures like otters (very capable swimmers, but still agile on land), and seals (even better swimmers, and very awkward on land), and manatees (fully aquatic). And, it should be mentioned that no creature "decided" to evolve in a particular direction. At some point in the past, the ancestors of modern whales found a better life, i.e. more available food, in and around the shore than in the forest. Generations of living in and around the water SELECTED those with traits better suited for aquatic life.

  • greendawn

    Gaia you have produced many points that need to be answered but as for the catholic church going over to the theory of evolution i don't know where you got that info from but it's definitely wrong, the Catholics are too conservatively minded for such a revolutionary change in ideology and they believe in a Creator of everything now as ever before.

    They only made one small concession in that evolution may have occured but only under the direction and impetus of the Creator: developmental creation they call it. See Catholic Answers a site that expresses Vatican thinking


    As for species evolution take any two that are adjacent in evolutionary terms and you will see that the gap between them is too big to be the product of evolution by small steps as perceived by Darwinism, there are no such small steps, numerous or few, in the fossil record only big ones. That includes the species that link the whale to the supposed wolf like ancestor.

    Of course the whales and dolphins are mammals (lungs,womb) but otherwise they are very fish like in anatomy.

  • Qcmbr

    Hiy Green. - I'm an ultra evolutionist from one viewpoint - I believe God was once one of us and should we so choose we can be like Him - now that's evolution! Religion aside in my mind we will be creators on other worlds as soon as we get decent propulsion systems. We'll introduce life to lifeless planets and bio-engineer them to be able to exist. We'll probably start with bio-domes (which I bet some wag will call Eden) and experiment until we can get life that can live on other planets - we'll then terraform (depending on our energy sources) and create living environments. Even if abiogenesis is how we started it certainly won't be the way life gets to other barren planets we choose to colonise - we'll take it there and play god till it 'obeys' and we get plants and animals living on other worlds. Evolutionary processes will take over from there and we'll very rapidly get a flourishing planet. To believe in the flood forces one to be an evolutionist of the most extreme kind.

  • greendawn

    QC interesting ideas about humans eventually wielding superhuman powers and ruling over planets but I think of it as due to be achieved by those that conquer in Christ rather than by godless and arrogant humans who have already caused enough suffering on this planet.

    As for God He is timeless and eternally almighty, He can't be perceived correctly by the limited human mind.

  • Qcmbr

    Hi Green - why did you make that assumption that God couldn't be perceived correctly by the limited human mind? This is my point about dogmatic assertions painting us into theologically indefensible corners. If I guess right you're a trinitarian so at least on one level (Jesus) God has to be perceivable (on a physical level He can be - 'if you've seen me you've seen the father' assuming that wasn't a pro-nicence interpolation) on an intellectual level He can be perceived (we must be able to answer what we worship surely) and if we are to be joint-heirs with Christ we 'must' be made of the same stuff so I presume you know who you are... I wouldn't be so quick to denigrate man (the children) and mystify God (the Father) as that pleads a theological and physical seperation between God and man that isn't necessary to an understanding of scripture.

Share this