I believe the sun is green, not yellow. No one has proven to me that it is yellow. I choose to believe that it is green.
evolution or creation? lets talk...
by Sam87 537 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Caedes
Whyizit,
Creades--- fish are getting smaller so they won't get caught in nets. (?)
It's Caedes thank you. Yes, Average fish size has dropped as an evolutionary response to human fishing.
Dido-- your response to Creades about the pollution in the water was very observant. Sometimes the answers are not nearly as complicated as the self-proclaimed genius' would have us think. My thought on that subject was that perhaps the fishermen were over-fishing the area. The only fish left were the ones too small to sell at market. Too simple for the big brains to consider, but it made sense to me.
I haven't insulted you please do me the same courtesy, it is incredibly insulting to assume that what I am referring to has not been studied in depth by 'self proclaimed genii' (or 'big-brains' if you prefer, I'm not sure why you think it an insult to call someone intelligent) or scientists as the rest of the world knows them. What you are saying is exactly the point the scientists are making, the fish that carried genes to make them 'big fish' have all been eaten by us. We were selecting the larger fish to be eaten, so the ones that remain (and carry on to reproduce) tend to carry genes to be 'small fish' resulting in an average reduction in fish size. That is evolution in action, the survival of the fittest, in this case, fittest is the fish that can swim through the holes in the net. Now if you would like I can provide you with links that explain all the experimentation that went on to show that the mechanism used is genetic evolution and that other factors such as pollution weren't responsible.
I'm with you, Dido. This is getting boring, because rather than explain things in a kind and rational manner, if you don't instantly go along with their view, they result to name-calling and cursing at you. Behaving beligerently does not "explain or prove" anything. And it certainly doesn't serve to win anyone over to your cause.
I've certainly had an education on the character and decency of some of those posting on this subject. The childish name calling and vicious attitudes.....Sticks and stones..... afterall. I haven't attempted to belittle and exclude anyone because their views were different than mine. Perhaps I'm not as intellectual as some. I agree with that. Getting wrapped up in all the intellectual knowledge is what the Pharisees did. They were merciless and loveless. They would not tolerate any view that conflicted with their superior thought process. They couldn't grasp the gospel, because it was too "simple". The evolutionists on this discussion make superb Pharisees.
(Italics added)
If you cannot see how hypocritical those last two paragraphs are then there is little further to say but if you want to learn then you have to listen first.
-
TopHat
Here you go Steve...I will provide a link here for you to understand my chose of Creation over Evolution.
-
stevenyc
TopHat,
Thanks for the link, I will read it. Meanwhile, I would like to hear your personal take. And, so would appreciate your response to my questions.
steve
-
Dansk
I haven't read all of this thread so forgive me if this has been covered.
When I was a little boy we were having religious studies in class. Our wonderful elderly lady teacher had been discussing God and I raised my hand:
"Yes, Ian?"
"Miss, who made God?"
"Oh, God has always been there!"
Being so young I suppose I must have felt rather embarrassed for asking such a "stupid" question and accepted my beloved teacher's answer without reservation. Now, I realise it was a jolly good question!
No one can prove that there is a God any more than someone can prove that there isn't - but, scientifically, the probability of there not being a god far outweighs the probability of there being one.
There is enough archaelogical, historical, scientific and, yes, theological evidence available to disprove the god of the Bible and Jesus. I am not attacking anyone's faith here because that's for them. BUT, at the same time, it is blatantly poor form for someone to try and defend the indefensible. So many people here defend the scriptures when an abundance of evidence taken from the academic fields I mentioned has revealed they weren't written when they were supposedly written; the authors of most (all?) scripture are not who they are said to be; the splendour of Solomon never existed; there NEVER was a mighty Jewish nation on the scale of Babylon or Egypt; the books of the Bible were put together by the early church fathers and it was they who stated the scriptures were of divine origin, etc.
I am convinced that most, if not all, defenders of the three mainstream religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, do so out of fear and not love. They fear death and would like the reward of everlasting life afterwards, be that in heaven or on earth. They feel that in order to "gain points" for salvation, they MUST defend their faith (some to ridiculous ends, such as fundamentalists).
The amazing thing is, most evolutionists have read and researched creationism - but the same cannot be said for the other way round. This is a great shame, because evolution is incredibly enlightening.
Ian
-
jstalin
TopHat - I read that article and there are several problems with it, as is the case with most creationist argumentation. First, the idea that the big bang is a theory and that we simply don't know what happened and how, does not even begin to touch on evolution. Scientists will readily admit that no one knows for sure what happened at the beginning of the universe. This is not to say, however, that it cannot be known. As the article pointed out, the original "steady state" theory of the universe was thrown out when it was clearly demonstrated to be false. However, the idea that the big bang happened is not in serious debate. When the theory was developed, the idea that there would be leftovers from the Big Bang was posited. Lo and behold, years later, cosmic microwave background radiation, just as predicted, was detected. Since then there have been hundreds of studies of the background radiation, further proving that the big bang occurred.
However, the article, as is typical, does not put forth any positive theory of creation, it simply attempts (poorly) to cast doubt on evolution, both cosmic and biological. The fact is that evolution has been observed and can be repeated. Evolution, as a process, is a fact, not a theory. The theory is how that process, over time, led to the development of a diverse number of species, from plants to animals to fungi and viruses. All of the available evidence supports the evolutionary path of the development of life. No evidence supports creation. Creationists can only attempt to chink away at evolution through such arguments like "it doesn't seem like it could happen." That's not an argument. If you want to attempt to show that creation has any validity, please show me some evidence.
-
hooberus
Persons desiring an informed creationist scientific perspective will find the following links helpful:
http://www.creationresearch.org
http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/icc.htm
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/24/68/
For responses to many of the claims by evolutionists here see my post history.
-
LittleToe
Ian:
I am convinced that most, if not all, defenders of the three mainstream religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, do so out of fear and not love.
Now, now. You know that aint true
-
SixofNine
:pats and runs:
.
.
:D
-
TopHat
TopHat,
Thanks for the link, I will read it. Meanwhile, I would like to hear your personal take. And, so would appreciate your response to my questions.
steve
I am sure you know my personal take as I have expressed it many times on this thread and other threads.....Your questions are answerd in the link I gave you if you are asking about Macroevolution. The many Theis I have read in my life time are sumed up in that link.