Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!

by Seeker4 178 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • acsot
    acsot
    since there is no archeologic real evidence

    Corinne, please read at least the link I gave you to the McGill University paper. Il y a une montagne de preuves archéologiques pour l'évolution. What are creationists so afraid of?

  • PrimateDave
    PrimateDave

    Hi thetrueone,

    Don't worry. We read your posts. I agree with you. Approaching the study of evolution in isolation from other scientific disciplines is counterintuitive.

    Dave

  • gumb
    gumb

    1. Skyking, you ask, "How can such a highly intelligent God come from nothing?" This is the paradox facing believers, and that is why the 'answer' would be that God has always existed; something the human mind cannot grasp. I would like to ask, "How can matter/energy come from nothing?" This is the paradox facing non-believers, and that is why the 'answer' would be that matter/energy has always existed; something the human mind cannot grasp. So both sides are faced with that which in the light of human experience is not logical! You pay your money and you take your choice.

    2. A. Kate, extremely valid points you make concerning any group belief.

    3. Seeker4, with regard to the illustration about electricity. Yes, but we can all test the reality of electricty! But we can't test the 'reality' of macro evolution.

    4. Asheron, any change in genetic code to such a degree as you indicate (ie dog into a cat) needs both a comprehensive list of changes and means of implementing those changes. This is where the question arises, "Is it more likely to be done through chance or through a guiding hand?"

    5. Abbadon, I think I would go to a dentist to deal with my teeth because he is an expert in teeth, and as such I would tend to trust his opinion on how to deal with teeth, but I would not feel obliged to accept his personal views on how human beings got teeth in the first place. Likewise with a biologist.

    6. Since evolutionists tell us that macro evolution is a fact, and that the 'theory' of evolution is just a way of explaining it, then I assume the majority of articles by evolutionists will not address the real point of contention, which means one could end up wasting a lot of time reading their articles. However, if someone could point me to one online article that really addresses the issue in a concise manner (ie not reams and reams of electronic pages), I'll read it.

    7. To me, evidence for/against God falls under the subject of extraterrestrial intelligence, and should therefore be viewed not only as a religious interest, but as a scientific one. Some non-religious people are already prepared to see it that way, for example in the theory of 'direct panspermia'

    8. It should be made clear that the possession of skulls, bones, fossils, etc cannot prove macro evolution. The existence of such possessions is fact. However, the interpretation of how they came about (and in some cases even what species they are) is not.

    BTW: I am not a creationist, and I don't form my views from the Bible or any other religious book for that matter.

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    RAF

    You don't seem to get what I mean or I am expressing myself badly;

    • I support a theory because of the evidence supporting it.
    • There are no other theories that match the evidence even remotely as well.
    • There are loads of hypotheses with no evidence, but they don't interest me as they have no evidence.

    Thus for everyday purpses, I regard the theory as a fact.

    Just like I would regard a cow in my living room and a hole in my roof as the product of a bizzare animal handling accident on an airplane as a fact for everyday purposes, even if my next door neighbour told me aliens put it there or an angel delivered it.

    I might be wrong about Evolution. I might be wrong about the origin of the cow. But it's not particulary likely.

    Everyboby can believe in what they want since it doesn't hurt?

    Yes, tell that to the victims of religious violence, tell that to families broken by cults. How can you say beliefs don't hurt? Maybe you don't mean the sort of beliefs that lead to religous violence or other damage, but those damaging beliefs are ALWAYS supported by an insistence that unfounded opinion is worth more than evidence.

    I don't know what you would ask. You might ask whatever question comes to your mind to explore if my reasonning makes sens to you ...

    Good answer. You are paying attention ;-)

    But actually it is far simpler. I would ask for evidence that would be acceptable in a court of law or a science lab.

    And you are not applying the same standards.

    You have a belief which you cannot prove and have no evidence or theory of. You accept this without question.

    I have a theory with evidence that supports it. Without even bothering to really learn about the subject (I am not being mean, this statement is based upon the knowledge you display, not one your ninterpreation of that knowledge) you decide that the theory is wrong, yet have no other explanation for the evidence that we see.

    If you applied the standards you apply to evolutionary theory to your own beliefs, you would have to question your own beliefs. You are applying a massive double standard.

    Now, I am very happy for you to have your beliefs. I just take exception to someone denying what are regarded as facts in court of law (in at least Australia and the US this has effectively happened) when they keep slipping up and shopping they don't know the subject as well they think they do.

    I don't know why you cannot be happy with 'our' theory, as it's not like you have anything to replace it, as god could make the world any damn way he liked and still exist. This insistence that RAF and Apostate Kate and others are right and all those silly scientists are wrong seems to stem from something but I can't out my finger on it. For a panthiest your level of insistence on evolutionary error is, well, unique in my experience.

    As for links, well, here are some links about links;

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    Please ask any questions about these articles you might have. And please don't compromise your intelligence by making ludicous claims about there being no 'archaelogoical' evidence of evoluton, there's a large museum full of it in most major cities.

    I also have to thank another poster for sharing this with me;

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_8_115/ai_n16807321/pg_1

    This 'proves' common descent of many species. Basically once an animal stops using a gene, the gene gets eroded by errors as it isn't needed for survival and thus has no selection pressure to maintain it. But we can still see these eroded non-functional genes. For example, whales and dolphins don't see in colour as it is useless to see in colour below a few metres depth. However, they still carry the eroded non-functional genes for colour vision they inherited from their terrestial ancestors who had colour vision.

    But I fear what you want to prove links is the same as me saying I want proof of mountain erosion.

    Someone could take me to the mountain and show me cracks in rocks and pebbles and sand, wind and water. But I could say this was not proof of erosion unless I could SEE the mountain getting smaller.

    If I said this someone who knew about geology would find me most unreasonable, as no one can see the erosion of mountains due to the time scale it happens on. Most people would think I was ignoring the evidence of erosion all around me.

    I fear that I can show you the equivalent of cracks in rocks and pebbles and sand, wind and water, but unless you see a dog turn into a cat you won't accept the evidence. What am I meant to think about that attitude?

    And I am still smiling and being nice, I'm just challenging you; I am disappointed you don't want your beliefs challenged - one thing the JW experience taught us is that truth need not hide or run away from examination. Why do you run away from examining your truth?

    More they will have means to research and more they will find ways to explain the process that we already know about evolution capacities (But not links to lead a species to another, and scientists really need that to make this entire theory credible – but we miss archaeologist material here … that’s the problem – if they have been able to find several types (but not compatible to bread – since they have means to state about that … So …it doesn’t help them) it just means that those types could have been animals/species who disappeared like Dinosaurs – that’s way back – and we have proof for that … So … where is the proof in what we are talking about to make the entire thing ok as a real proof? … )

    Look, when they started digging up fossils and recognising them for what they were, they arranged the skeletons in family trees. Obviously some mistakes were made and sometimes new evidence made them shuffle stuff about.

    But they have never found a pentadactyl tetrapod in the Ordovian (or anything 'out-of-place' that would disprove the general theory). Thus cladistic (bone-based) theories of descent were the best match to evidence.

    Then we discover genetics. And for those animals that we can obtain DNA samples from (either still alive or recently extinct) guess what? In the vast majority of cases the family trees made on the basis of bones were proved by genetics.

    We can see (if you read above article) the traces of long-disused eroded genes that show genes are passed on, and if they don't get used will decay but still provide a trail proving descent.

    Now, you are yet to come up with one reason WHY you refuse to accept the evidence for links; you write as though you think there is none, which makes me wonder how much you do know about the subject

    So, rather than taking the easy option of vaugely saying 'there is no proof', why not show us just how flimsy evolutionary theory is by attacking in a specific fashion? Above you have loads of evidence that you can examine concerning specific links, and come back with the reasons why you don't accept it.

    Like I say, I am afraid at the end of the day the fact I cannot show you a dog turn into a cat (not that I say this happened, it is an example of change) will make you say it's not proof.

    But you know what? Mountains will still erode even if I say they don't because I cannot see it happen.

    Happy Valentines all the same

    Gyles

    Apostate Kate

    What, no answers? Can you only answer the questions you have a URL for, or a stock reply?

    This is not a debate board but a discussion board and it is good that we can keep it respectful. Why do you feel the need to refute someone anyway? Why not a calm respectful discussion?

    LOL. Pot. Kettle. Black. I've often seen your responses in these sort of threads but normally ignore them as you always seem to be screaming off a soapbox; and I will C&P examples if you deny this. Yup, I put things forcefully too, but I don't pretend otherwise.

    If YOU weren't refuting someone with your C&P, what were you doing? Applying a double standard is the only thing I can find evidence for... Oh, debate doesn't mean rude, why imply a falsehood? Discussion doesn't preclude disagreement, so why make it sound like it cannot take place?

    And Apostate Kate, what some random 'evolutionist' (what University and what specialism? What class of degree?) may or may not have said to you is irrelvent. There are thousands of pages (4.7 million actually) that come up with thermodynamics as a search term. I BET you the only ones which say evolution violates the 2nd law are those which support creationism et.al..

    Despite claiming you go for a non-biased view you mistake a comment, or take a mistake someone made, and use this as a basis of an attack on evolution, ignoring that the vast majority of references on the subject (for this read all the credible ones) and accepting the claims of a tiny biased minority, most of whom aren't even physicists. Why?

    You mention scientific error. Why? What is wrong with science changing its mind about something if evidence is available which supports it changing its mind?

    And how can you have the gall to say you know anything about the subject or go for unbiased sources when you say things like;

    It is full of extinct species, get it, extinct species. Species that did not adapt.

    Where do I begin? Some of those species indeed ALL died out as they couldn't survive in a new situation. Other times entire species evolved into a new species so would appear as dying out as they did. Other times portions of the total population evolved into new species, and other portions died out, in both cases making it look like the original species dying out as it did.

    Just because species CAN adapt doesn't mean they do so succesfully. You are implying evolutionary theory makes a claim it does not, which you could only do if you knew very little about the subject.

    So far, as also pointed out above, by your own mistakes you are making it obvious you are an outspoken critic (nothing wrong with that) of a subject you don't know enough about to reliably make a post on without making mistakes, not of opinion but of fact (which is just making you look silly all by your own actions).

    Today we have humans riddled with diseases and getting sicker and sicker with more fatal mutations occurring not less.
    Evolution if a true scientific law would be evident across the board, all living things would be subject to it.

    It is; I am surprised for someone so well versed in evolution that you seem unaware of the proofs that human populations do evolve following the theory of natural selection. How do you account for this gap in your knowledge?

    Instead it is common sense that says all life is subject to the 2nd law, entropy and will die.

    Wrong. Go talk to a physicist if you can put your arrogance on hold for 1 minute.

    Now, lets see if you can answer simple questions; please account for dolphins and whales having inactive decayed forms of the genes for colour vision.

    Please tell me what proves your personal theory of origins... I assume that as such a well-read critic of evolution you have of course a theory with evidence of a standard acceptable in a reasonable venue? It would be unthinkable you wouId be hypocritical enough to attack a theory when you don't even have one yourself.

    My opinion on the different skulls are that they all were either simian or human. When I was a child I was taught and believed that Neanderthal was a hairy ape man. Then later I learned that they buried their dead with flowers and other information was unearthed.

    Look at yourself; you KNOW that MORE INFORMATION was DISCOVERED, and ATTACK evolutionists for changing their ideas! How unreasonable can you get. Oh, and the above change in estimation of H. neander' didn't ever threaten the basic principles of evolutionary theory. One H. erectus in a era of A. rama would. The fact you think this put evolution in peril is you again illustrating you are pontificating about a subject you show little knowledge of.

    Neanderthal now is believed to have been fully human and intermarried with people from other regions that did not have the pronounced brow ridge.

    There is one set of evidence that MAY support this but it is not agreed with by all. We do KNOW that there is no proof of such interbreeding other than claudistic comparison as we have mDNA profiles for H. neander'ad H. sap' and there is no link. If you knew as much as you claim you would explain this evidence differently.

    Some scientists think that apes and man interbred. That is stupid to me. It can't happen today, it did not happen then.

    I'd love to see the qualifications of people making such claims and when they made them. Please provide it so I can show either (by ommission of proof) you are lying or are quoting claims made ages ago/by unqualified people.

    I still have not heard the logical explanation for the Human Genome Project tracing human DNA back to the first humans and ending there with a tribe in Africa. Wouldn't DNA be traceable all the way back to chimps?

    Hysterical. Please understand I don't expect YOU to change your mind as I have had enough discussions on this board to develop a nose for it. You probably won't even reply, LOL.

    I am VERY aware (as people tell me) that threads like this are pivotal in making those who are willing to be open minded about the subject examine the evidence.

    And as you show very clearly what side reason, knowledge and evidence is on all I really have to do is keep you 'proving' how wrong evolution is and then supply Cliff Notes for YOU to convince fence-sitters and even some who believe in ID or Creation that evolution is worth looking at again by your comprehensive lack of knowledge and continual errors. This is not an insult, it's describing your behaviour. By all means show my claims about your errors are false.

    Going back to your above comment, it is funny how you use evidence supporting evolution (human genome project) to make a claim that shows massive ignorance about the subject, as geentic evidnece also shows the vast similarity between us and the Great Apes. If aliens did the classifying of species they would probably put us and Chimps in the same grouping, H. trog and H. sap.

    There are gaps, big gaps that cannot be explained away with, "look at the similarities they prove we evolved" bunk. Where is the DNA trail?

    In books about the genetic evidence for evolution. Read one.

    I have heard theories to explain the gap such as "the gaps are in the missing link's DNA" which opens up a whole new set of questions. If macro evolution works then how and why did entire species die off? gaps gaps gaps....

    And there as well as showing despite your 'massive knowledge' of evolution you think it claims species never die out (WRONG)., LyYou also have shown you don't understand fossilisation!

    In order for macro evolution to work we would see transitional species today.

    AH, and mountains don't erode because you can't see it happen? LOL

  • Sad emo
    Sad emo

    welcome to the board gumb

    1. Skyking, you ask, "How can such a highly intelligent God come from nothing?" This is the paradox facing believers, and that is why the 'answer' would be that God has always existed; something the human mind cannot grasp. I would like to ask, "How can matter/energy come from nothing?" This is the paradox facing non-believers, and that is why the 'answer' would be that matter/energy has always existed; something the human mind cannot grasp. So both sides are faced with that which in the light of human experience is not logical! You pay your money and you take your choice.

    These were the points I was trying to make to Skyking - but he appears to have switched off at that point - maybe trying to define the word 'eternal' was just too much for him To me it says that some evolutionists (don't forget, in spite of evidence, it's still an unproven theory!) are as closed minded and unwilling to think outside the box as the 'literal Bible account' creationists. (On top of this what's with the biased treatment against Apostate Kate? She posts a long list of scientists and gets flamed, Tetra does the same and gets thanked. Go figure)

    8. It should be made clear that the possession of skulls, bones, fossils, etc cannot prove macro evolution. The existence of such possessions is fact. However, the interpretation of how they came about (and in some cases even what species they are) is not.

    That's why I believe in micro evolution as undeniable fact but not yet macro evolution. But I'm beginning to think this thread isn't the best place to get educated after all. Indoctrinated maybe...

  • PrimateDave
    PrimateDave

    Hello, Emo

    Try this link and decide for yourself: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
    The Scientific Case for Common Descent

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    There is a huge amount of information. Some of it goes over my head. I'm just glad that there are web sites that have digested the vast and often dry scientific papers and texts on these subjects and put it all in a relatively easy to read format.

    Until about a year ago I didn't have the courage to look at web sites like that. I tried to be a good JW, mostly. I was "born" a JW, if you know what I mean. I defended Creationism, JW style for most of my life. I loved to read the big blue Creation book that the WTS produced in the '80s. Years ago I even tried to defend Creationism on a message board. I had all the facts! I had the Watchtower literature and I had Michael Behe's Intelligent Design book, Darwin's Black Box. LOL!

    Well, long story short, in the past few years I got the nagging sense that something was wrong with the Org. For that matter, there were some serious things that bugged me about the Bible, too. In the end, I decided that I had to know the truth, the real truth, or at least enough "truth" to make a decision about what I was doing with my life.

    I decided that if the Bible was incorrect about some things, then the Witnesses were wrong. The two weakest points about the Bible in my opinion were the Creation account and the Flood of Noah. When I researched the Flood, I realized what an impossibility it would be for such an event to have happened. Then I took a closer look at the theory of Evolution and realized how little I had understood this impressive and comprehensive field of knowledge.

    Sure, scientists do not know everything. That's why they look for evidence and perform experiments. And then they often wind up with more questions than they started with. All I ever got from the Witnesses was, "All the answers you need are in the Bible. If it doesn't fit the Bible, then it must be wrong."

    Well, Anthropology, Astronomy, Biology, Ecology, Psychology, Sociology, and Zoology all disagree with the Bible to some extent or other. Why did God make the world one way and have His Book written a different way, I wondered.

    I then read Timothy Campbell's website "Beyond Jehovah's Witnesses". I took his suggestion and read Crisis of Conscience by Ray Franz, and Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard E. Friedman. I learned quickly that the Witnesses were not the "truth", and that the Bible was not written like the Watchtower Society said it was.

    On this message board I found out about books like Is It God's Word? by Joseph Wheless, and Biblical Nonsense by Dr. Jason Long. Read those books, and you'll never think about Jehovah the same way again, I promise! God of love, indeed!

    It was a revelation over a period of a few months. I finally realized that I am not a "sinful" human being after all! I didn't need salvation! I didn't have to fear some unknowable god or his son or a devil or demons.

    I had to give up a few cherished beliefs in the process... everlasting life on a paradise earth, a resurrection. I no longer have all the answers. I don't know what the future holds. I don't know what, if anything, happens for me after I die. In fact, sometimes reality just sucks. But there is no going back to the Matrix for me now.

    And that is the short story of how I came to accept the theory of Evolution and became a-theistic [without god(s)].

    Hey, God, it's me! Are you there? I want to know. In all seriousness.

    Then I come on this board and I see so many others at different stages of development and awareness. There are those whose minds are still closed in many ways, and it is frustrating to read their comments because there I was, and there I could still be if not for the right information. Thanks.

    Dave

  • Sad emo
    Sad emo

    Thanks Dave

    I've had a brief look at the link (well, an hour lol!) I think I need to sit and read through it properly on a weekend when I'm not tired from working all day. It looks interesting, I'd like to read the refutation and response as well.

    I doubt I'd stop believing in God even if macro evolution was proved and I accepted it, I'm not a literal Genesis account believer anyway so I'd still be happy to believe in an 'originator', if He chose to put His spirit in us after we'd evolved from apes, it doesn't matter, what matters to me is that He did!

    The 'AnswersinGenesis' people are coming to our town next month and I've seen the advertisement leaflet - some of the statements on it caused my eyebrows to raise - I'm guessing they're literalists, I may just go along and heckle

    Peace

  • Asheron
    Asheron

    Sad Emo,

    You posted.

    "These were the points I was trying to make to Skyking - but he appears to have switched off at that point - maybe trying to define the word 'eternal' was just too much for him To me it says that some evolutionists (don't forget, in spite of evidence, it's still an unproven theory!) are as closed minded and unwilling to think outside the box as the 'literal Bible account' creationists. (On top of this what's with the biased treatment against Apostate Kate? She posts a long list of scientists and gets flamed, Tetra does the same and gets thanked. Go figure)"

    Apostate Kate's list is a list she presents to show how some "scientists" believe in creation. She tried to prove a point by weight of authority that "smart" people believe creation too. That smart people believe in creation is not in doubt nor was it ever stated.

    Tetra did not "do the same". Tetra's post was a list of the evidence in response to the many "theres no evidence for evolution" posts that have been delivered by posters like Apostate Kate and RAF.

    If your only response to as to why you dont believe in macro evolution is "its still an unproven theory!" than I am confident you will not change any minds if that is your intent.

    So let me get his straight, "literal bible creationists and evolutionists are "close minded" but people that believe like you in a non literal creation account but dont believe in MACRO evolution think outside the box?

    Sad Emo, put down the brush you are using to paint people. You know nothing about how open minded I or other posters are from reading a few posts in an evolution debate.

    PS: I keep an open mind but not so open my brain falls out.

    Asheron

  • gumb
    gumb

    Hi emo. Thanks for the welcome and the warning!

    Having gone back and read some of the more recent posts, I feel it necessary to write the following:

    The fact that simpler type "a" organisms may appear chronologically before more complex type "b" organisms does not in itself prove that one evolved from another. This is the crux of the matter: interpretation. Now, interpretation is not proof. The main point of disagreement between evolutionists and non-evolutionists, is of course not the existence of type "a" or type "b", but rather the relationship (if any) between the two. The existence of type "a" is a fact, just as the existence of type "b" is a fact. However, an assumption that type "b" was derived from type "a" by chance is not a fact; no more than an assumption that type "b" developed from type "a" through pre-programmed potential or that type "b" was directly and separately inserted into the environment is a fact.

    One could put on a great exhibition of fossil finds and put them into a supposed evolutionary branch of ever increasing bio-complexity, but this is no proof of evolution, it is proof only that certain types shared certain similarities. So, it is no good directing non-evolutionists to such exhibitions in the belief that they will see the 'fact' of macro evolution, since they will not accept that they are actually seeing any compelling evidence.

    BTW, I don't really care whether we evolved or not, there are much more important things in life. However, I do care about free speech, and the right to debate things without recourse to trying to prove one's point by mudslinging!

  • Sad emo
    Sad emo
    Apostate Kate's list is a list she presents to show how some "scientists" believe in creation. She tried to prove a point by weight of authority that "smart" people believe creation too. That smart people believe in creation is not in doubt nor was it ever stated. Tetra did not "do the same". Tetra's post was a list of the evidence in response to the many "theres no evidence for evolution" posts that have been delivered by posters like Apostate Kate and RAF.
    Then why do you put scientists and smart in inverted commas - are they less scientific than the ones Tetra listed? But yes, I'll grant that the intent of each list may have been different.
    If your only response to as to why you dont believe in macro evolution is "its still an unproven theory!" than I am confident you will not change any minds if that is your intent.

    Not my intent at all, I don't know what gave you that idea, I'm still enquiring, did you notice that I wrote in spite of evidence before "it's still an unproven theory"? Like RAF has said frequently in her posts, you're free to believe what you want, I'm trying to learn for myself. What's the deal for you with me writing that anyway - even YOU have said evolution is unproven, why have a go at me for saying the same?

    So let me get his straight, "literal bible creationists and evolutionists are "close minded" but people that believe like you in a non literal creation account but dont believe in MACRO evolution think outside the box?

    Did you notice that I wrotesome evolutionists before closed minded? I try not to do labelling. Stop pulling bits of my sentences out of context.

    Sad Emo, put down the brush you are using to paint people. You know nothing about how open minded I or other posters are from reading a few posts in an evolution debate.

    Asheron, if you took my comment personally that's your problem. I haven't 'painted' any posters at all, that is merely your misguided perception. You haven't given any response to my previous questions on this thread, and you aren't being exactly constructive by insulting my intelligence now - however little of it you think I have. I am not prepared to continue with this particular dialogue so if you feel the need to insult me further don't expect any reply.

    If you've nothing constructive to say to me on the subject of evolution -

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit