by B_Deserter 39 Replies latest jw experiences
This is EXACTLY the kind of thing creationists DEMAND to see before acknowledging evolution is real,
So, now they see it, and the response is:
Please remove your butt-plug, eat some colon blow, and return to your dungeon to let it out.
BA
I'm surprised the theists haven't beat the snot out of you for making them look bad. (Unless they agree I guess...)
It's an invisible magic man in the sky that poofed us all in to existence.
We are the end result of consiousness desire to be made manifest , that is the real miracle . Of what purpose is there in laying claim to the origin ?
What benifit is derived from possesion of this "ultimate knowledge of origin" ?
What importance is gained from believing we were poofed into being with a magic wand or we were slowly poofed into being by natural selection ?
The real issue is the fact that we are hear at all , and maybe some productive disscusion on that topic would actually be benificial.
WE are undeniably here , understanding what our purpose is cannot be derived from our past ,it can only be derived from our present since that is all that is knowable and real anyway.
Any strong stance on either side of the fence merely indicates a closed mind that probably still has "issues" in the closet yet to be read
To all the little "monkey cousins":
Yes, just as it took time for the "true believers" in a flat earth to be proven wrong, so not everything that"science" has believed has withstood the test of time.
Evolution (macro-evolution, for those who are semantically inclined) is nothing more than a theory.
A theory that, like any detective work, is suspect in it's conclusion.
You believe in your evolution fairy tale.
Go ahead, it suits you.
When you are proven wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt in the future,
you'll eat your words.
No problem,
because not an imperfect man will judge you,
but Christ, a perfect god, who has walked amongst men and understands us better than any of us do, will judge us.
BA- God have mercy on our souls.
PS- For ex-JW evolutionists, belief in the "Governing Body" as the ultimate dispenser of "truth" has been replaced by Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, et al, as the ultimate dispenser of "truth". Time to wake up, children. Think outside the box and realize that there is more to explaining our life than total trust in science. Life is bigger than you think, and there exists in life more than is dreamt of in your narrow minded philosophy.
Kettle says" MY ,your black"
Evolution (macro-evolution, for those who are semantically inclined) is nothing more than a theory.
The same can be said of gravity... What's your point?
Let me guess, you don't know what a scientific theory is, do you?
Theory: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena.
So, yeah, evolution is a theory... that means it's right up there with the theory of relativity and the theory of gravity.
And remember, God is nothing more than a hypothesis.
B_Deserter, check this link out:
tsar,
As usual, the author of this essay has a profound lack of understanding of what evolution is. Allow me to comment on a few points
Evolutionists point out these species that exist today as examples of an evolutionary transition that happened millions of years ago in the past. Do they expect, then, that the mudskipper or lungfish will continue evolving into people given enough time?
No, they don't. Scientists do not believe that all life evolves to "higher" forms. Evolution is not an intelligent process. The basic premise is this: when a creature reproduces, it doesn't reproduce perfectly. Genetic information is altered because of the combination of genes from both parents. These give rise to new traits (slightly longer necks, wings, etc.). If these traits prove to give the creature an "edge," then it will be more likely to survive and more likely to pass those "longer neck" or "longer wing" genes on. Over time, it leads to speciation. There is no "direction" when it comes to evolution.
Perhaps such creatures might give an evolutionist some comfort on a superficial level, but the argument is as fallacious as lining up your silverware to prove that forks evolved from spoons.
An interesting illustration, but the author doesn't say exactly what logical fallacy it supposedly is. I'm beginning to suspect that the author doesn't even know what a logical fallacy is, either.
A similar problem is the origin of flight: it would have had to evolve at least four times, in birds, bats, insects and flying reptiles. It makes more sense that our creator solved this problem once and incorporated flight four times in unrelated species.
Scientists have no problem with the evolution of flight and this sentence again reveals a complete lack of understanding on the subject. The fact that flight evolved in more than one creature is neither here nor there to scientists, in fact if anything it's to be expected. This author is actually saying that it makes more sense to believe that an invisible man in the sky willed these creatures into existence than the fact that they developed their flying adaptations separately, at different times, due to different environmental factors.
I write computer applications for a living. Computer code does not materialize without a programmer. Living systems contain a three-dimensional computer code that tells your fingers to grow to a certain length, and then stop. Your eyeballs do not grow to two inches in diameter, nor does your tongue grow to two feet in length. We observe that this marvelous dance of DNA, RNA and proteins provide for tremendous variety within a species, but is self-regulating, self-repairing and copies itself with tremendous accuracy. There is no reason to believe that this amazing system was different and simpler in the beginning. It is at this level that the logical argument for Darwinism fails.
What utter tripe! Again, he decries evolution for believing that the complex systems of life evolve spontaneously (which it doesn't), when he believes the exact same thing except that an invisible diety made up by bronze age shepards did it! The "marvelous dance" of DNA and RNA was not that complex in the beginning. It started very simply and over millions of years gradually built on itself. This is just another example of a creationist expecting an iguana give birth to a duck. Yes, that's a ridiculous notion, but it's not evolution either. There are PLENTY of reasons to believe that life was simpler in the beginning, this author is just willfully blind to the fact that the deeper you go into the fossil record, the less and less complex creatures you see.
There is nothing remarkable about this essay. It is entirely consisted of points that have already been addressed and debated.
I see that I am now a senior member, so where is my darned coffee discount?!
The unequivical evidence that evolution is true, = look at apes then look at any member of the gooberning bodice need i say more or is that really deevolution and an insult to apes??? Enquiring minds want to know.
I appreciate the reasoned tone of your refutation of the essay B Deserter ...The topic of evolution v creation is a popular one here as you may imagine..I have learned a lot about what evolution really teaches rather than how it is presented in WT publications. I still cannot accept it though.
I checked the Wikipedia link and see that science firmly places mudskippers as fish, even if they can breathe out of water . It is easy to look at creatures and say, "They are just the same" on external appearances but there is a lot more to it than that. {and I am not clever or educated enough to be technical about it}
Interestingly I recently picked up an old book by Charles Taze Russell at a K.Hall Library ..He said {paraphrase} that he saw no need to argue evolution. If the Great Creator had seen fit to bring different creatures about by evolving them from others, what of it? He just said that at the end of the creative period the kinds were fixed so they changed no more.
I am not proposing his hypothesis, I just thought it was interesting .....
