2010 DC Brochure: The Origin of Life, 5 Questions Worth Asking (PDF)

by yknot 28 Replies latest members private

• 

  yknot

  Credit/Kudos goes the posting Brother who 'took one for the team' !

  Some send him some thread love

  The Origin of Life, Five Questions Worth Asking....

  This publication spends a larger amount of time adding *asterisk marks* by those they quote.......

  Ex: pg 6 * Dr. (Carol) Cleland is not a creationist. She believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood.

  pg 24: * Henry Gee does not suggest that Ihe theory of evolulion is wrong. His comments are made to show the limits of what can
  be learned from the fossil record.

  http://www.sendspace.com/file/9ec3p7

  Don't be greedy....share the link with anyone and everyone you see fit!
• 

  agonus

  I skimmed over it. Doesn't look like anything new or special.
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  Billy's question #1:

  If the entire physical universe is so complex that a super-intelligent, super-power, super-Jehovah had to create it, doesn't super-Jehovah need to have a creator? If the robot was designed by a program, and the program was developed by a man, and the man had to be created by a great spirit creature, wouldn't the spirit creature need a creator?

  That's why Watchtower Corporation discourages people from attending school!
• 

  designs

  You're thinking of the One that lives near Pleiades right next to the Mars Bar
• 

  MadGiant

  Thanks

  Ismael
• 

  serenitynow!

  "If the entire physical universe is so complex that a super-intelligent, super-power, super-Jehovah had to create it, doesn't super-Jehovah need to have a creator"

  That's the question I've always had. At this point I consider the notion of a being who has just always existed, and created everything as plausible as evolution, the big bang, etc. Actually the idea of a being having no begining and no end seems a little more far-fetched than the others.
• 

  Black Sheep

  page 23

  Recent research continues to contradict
  Darwin's theory of common descent.
  For example, in 2009 an article in New
  Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary
  scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: "We
  have no evidence at all that the tree of
  life is a reality.~30 The same article quotes
  evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as
  saying: "The tree of life is being politely
  buried, we all know that. What's less
  accepted is that our whole fundamental
  view of biology needs to change.

  Why did Bapteste say this?

  Darwin assumed that descent was exclusively "vertical", with organisms passing traits down to their offspring. But what if species also routinely swapped genetic material with other species, or hybridised with them? Then that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being closely related in some respects but not others.

  http://www.deenresearchcenter.com/Blogs/tabid/73/EntryId/30/Why-Darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.aspx
• 

  besty

  Naughty Eric Bapteste said in the same article:

  "The tree of life was useful. It helped us to understand evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution it's time to move on."

  But we don't want to tell you that bit.

  Do your own research folks:

  http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&&sa=X&ei=_KENTIDQNML9nAeMls2JAg&ved=0CBsQBSgA&q=Eric+Bapteste+as+saying:+"We+Have+no+evidence+at+all+that+the+tree+of+life+is+a+reality&spell=1
• 

  MrFreeze

  Anbody who says they don't believe in evolution is fooling themselves. There are two kinds of evolution Macroevolution and microevolution. Macroevolution consists of species over time changing to become new species. Microevolution is species over time changing but still remaining the same species. For instance, when you breed two different kinds of dogs together. Nobody can deny that kind of evolution. As regards macroevolution, well that's up to the person to decide for themselves.
• 

  Black Sheep

  Page 23 "Recent research continues to contradict
  Darwin's ...."

  Next paragraph quotes David M. Raup from 1979. Is that 'recent'?

  Also, Raup is not promoting creationism, or denying evolution, in that article.