The Origin of Life / Was Life Created - Utter Lies!

by God_Delusion 67 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • teel

    God_Delusion, you've got mail, clicky here:

  • Matthew 46:79
    Matthew 46:79

    I agree with you, Sir82 from Mongolia. Some of the posts in this thread sort of remind me of this

  • Chalam

    I like what Richard Dawkins has to say regarding the origins of life :)

    expelled no intelligence allowed (part 10 of 10) PL



  • wobble

    The rubbish tract by the WT contends that Evolution is " not supported by the facts " WHAAAAT ?

    That has got to be one of the most numbnuts statements they have ever made, 2nd only to Jesus choosing them in 1919.

    ALL the facts support evolution, or do not contradict it.

    What would deal a blow to the Theory would be if an anachronistic fossil were found. Has such evidence of special creation ever been found ? No, and I am prepared to bet a lot of money that it never will be.

    The WT goes on about the fossil record, bits missing etc, the thing is that the Theory does not rely on fossils, they are a bonus, we are lucky to have what we do.

    I also think they make the error of thinking that because something is labelled Australopithecus or whatever, that there are no links to the next category, this is because a skull or whatever has to be put in some category or other, unless it is evidently a new discovery, so the seeming lack of links , or intermediaries, is just a matter of nomenclature, not of fact. Every skull is a link.

    The WT is showing its ignorance, but coupling it with their mind-control + propaganda technique. They are using their favourite false arguing method, because they question the Theory (with nothing to back up their attack) their view of special creation must be correct, no third way, of course we don't need a third way, as Evolution is proven by science.

    "Honesty in journalism" they don't know what that means, or rather , dare not be honest, they would cease to exist.


    "evolution is simply a theory-one not supported by the evidence."

    A Richard Dawkins fan... I hope you're are not using the make-shift evidence Dawkins points to as anything credible. He uses a system known as “junk science” to support baseless theories:
    I'm not a biologist, I attended a university for computer science, which worked out well for me so as to not become proselytized by organizations like Baylor (Houston, TX). Interestingly enough Rice doesn’t have any public statements that sponsor evolution. It’s become contagious in the scientific community to accept evolution with out being objective.

    Statement on Evolution

    "Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously."

    Do they teach theistic evolution? It would be nice to see any rigorously tested “overwhelming scientific evidence” that the building blocks of matter or life result in anything we can observe in the material world without an intelligent designer.
    Science and Faith

    "The Bible and science are not out of harmony with each other….. when the heart is responsive to God, the mind is usually without prejudice to investigate all facts in search of the truth."

    1923. Dr. S. Brooks, president of Baylor University, report to the Baptist General Convention of Texas in response to criticisms on the teaching of evolution at Baylor.

    We in the Biology Department are persons of science and faith. Sometimes we are asked by individuals outside of science how we integrate our faith and our careers in science. For this reason we offer this list of references as a starting point for others to learn about the many ways scientists integrate a life of faith and science.

    The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.
    Francis Collins, 2006. Free Press.

    Science and Creation: The Search for Understanding.
    John C. Polkinghorne, 1988. Templeton.

    Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.
    Kenneth Miller, 1999. Harper Collins.

    Perspectives on an Evolving Creation.
    Keith Miller (Ed.). 2003. Wm. B. Erdmans.

    Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology.
    Darrel R. Falk. InterVarsity Press. 2004. ISBN 0-8308-2742-0

    Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life.
    Stephen Gould, 1999. Ballantine.

    I provided some credible resources but there is no evidence for biologic or cosmic evolution. If you think there is, feel free to improvise with what you believe meets the criteria of scientific evidence. Scientific evidence can be obtained for the existence of a supreme being.

  • darthfader

    AIW.. Im not sure I understand your point. Are you "for" or "against" evolution?


    My personal comments indicate I don't believe in atheistic evolution. I provided some statements from others for both sides of the debate.

  • changeling

    "evolution is simply a theory-one not supported by the evidence."

    Alice: you posted the quote above. Please read my previous post.

  • changeling

    My previous post about scientific theory was in my own words. For those who prefer quotes and outside sources here's a link:


    "So... the WT is still using the "evolution is just a theory" line? Seems they have yet to learn (or admit) that the term "theory" in a scientific context is very different from how it is used in every day speech.

    In science, a theory is the result of extensive experimentation, study, and testing of a hypothesis. This all takes a long time (usually many, many years). IF, at the end of these many years, the results of this thorough experimentation support the original hypothesis and IF no other investigated hypothesis challenges the research, then, and only then, the hypothesis becomes "theory".

    If after many more years and further experimentation, study, and testing the theory is STILL unchallenged, it will be come a "law" of science.

    My anthropology professor, shared with our class last year, that the scientific community expects evolution to become "law" within our lifetime, possibly in the next ten years.

    It will be interesting to see what the WT and other dark age thinkers will say when this happens. :)"

    Anthropology has origins in the natural sciences, but macroevolution is not something that exists in the natural world as we know it. It's just something that supposedly happened millions of years ago. Evolution is law in the scientific community's biology department, but in all honesty, how could something that doesn't exist in the natural world have any practical value in the scientific community?

    The reason more scientists accept evolution over creation is because there's no evidence for the supernatural in their domain. Naturalism at least gives them something to work with, but they have yet to produce any evidence for macroevolution.

Share this