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

by God_Delusion 67 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Caedes

  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.

  Err, you do realise that scientists don't just sit around making stuff up? The scientific method requires repeatable experiments, so lets have a look at some experiments that scientists have done to find out how evolution works.

  The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially nearly identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since February 24, 1988. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations on February 14, 2010. [ 1 ]

  Since the experiment's inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to grow on citric acid in the growth media.

  For more information see http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/publicinterest.html

  That is fascinating stuff, a twelve year experiment looking at something that doesn't exist or have any practical value according to AIW (remind me again, where have you published your work that disproves evolution? I would have thought that someone who had managed to disprove evolution would be pretty famous even outside of the scientific community.)

  Since evolution doesn't happen (at least according to the world famous scientist AIW) I wonder what your thoughts are on the Nylon bug (http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm) or the London underground mosquito (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_1_110/ai_70770157/) since obviously you must have some alternative explanation for the speciation of the above.

  Presumably when AIW goes to the doctor she prefers creationist antibiotics, after all since evolution doesn't exist, bacteria don't adapt and evolve to become resistant to antibiotics? After all evolution has no value to science! So AIW, would you put your money where your mouth is and refuse modern antibiotics?

  You are right on one thing, there is no room for the supernatural in science, unless you would prefer to fly in an aircraft where the wings are attached by magic? Perhaps the next TV you buy could use the latest development in pixie dust to create images? Or is it the case that when your money or health is on the line you suddenly like science to be factual?

  In science there is no distinction between macro and micro evolution (since they are a creationist canard) so there is a wealth of evidence for what you call "macro" evolution.
• 

  wobble

  If I believed in him, I would say "Thank God for Caedes"

  You, dear Caedes, have put in to words the anger I feel at the arrogance of someone as wilfully ignorant as AIW.

  I say wilfully ignorant , because these proofs of evolution in action, i.e Lenskis, evolution before our eyes, as well as the proofs of what has gone on in the past, are so easy to access.

  Just go to a good museum, it is there, look on the internet, it is there.

  The nonsense promulgated by the WBT$ and apologists like AIW are quite risible.
• 

  alice.in.wonderland

  "Err, you do realise that scientists don't just sit around making stuff up? The scientific method requires repeatable experiments, so lets have a look at some experiments that scientists have done to find out how evolution works.

  The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially nearly identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since February 24, 1988. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations on February 14, 2010. [1]

  Since the experiment's inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to grow on citric acid in the growth media."

  Microorganisms are wildly mutable and the experiments pertaining to them are interesting, but this is not evidence for macroevolution.
  
  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
  
  29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
  
  What constitutes evidence in the minds of some isn't adequate if you consider evidence based quality standards in all other aspects of research and development. If the modern world accepted the standards of evidence some evolutionists accept, the world as we know it, would be much more dysfunctional than it already is. The oil well in the Gulf of Mexico wouldn't be the only well contaminating our ecosystem.
  
  None of the 29+ evidences for macroevolution provide an adequate demonstration of macroevolution: species deriving complexity from simpler lifeforms. Without this, the chain of events Darwin theorized that ultimately results in the latter stages in the hereditary line of succession, (higher primates, homosapians) is null and void.
  
  The alternative theory that was formed as a cover up for a lack of evidence is the critical time interval for vertebrate evolution: between 100 and 112 million years in duration-spans. Even if this were true, current advancements in biology would at the least reveal subtle changes in a species' genetic makeup towards this end.
  
  According to Dr. Paul Sharp, "Attempt to detect adaptive evolution at the molecular level have met with little success." Although the study described one of the few molecular successes of evolutionary theory, the trend has been that molecular biology contradicts much of evolutionary theory. (Sharp, P.M.. 1997. In search of molecular Darwinism. Nature 385: 111-112).
  
  Francis Collins could make a case for theistic evolution, but not atheistic evolution.
  
  The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief is a bestselling book by Francis Collins in which he advocates theistic evolution. Francis Collins is an American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes, and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He currently serves as the Director of the US National Institutes of Health. In the book, Collins describes briefly the process by which he became a Christian.
  
  "As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that." -Francis Collins
• 

  Copernic

  You can find your pleasure here : http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_creationist_arguments

  It works again !
• 

  bohm

  Alice, whats the difference between atheistic evolution and theistic?
• 

  alice.in.wonderland

  "Alice, whats the difference between atheistic evolution and theistic?"

  Theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.
  
  http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html
  
  Question: "What is theistic evolution?"
  
  Answer: Theistic evolution is one of three major origin-of-life worldviews, the other two being atheistic evolution (also commonly known as Darwinian evolution and naturalistic evolution) and special creation.
  
  Atheistic evolution says that there is no God and that life can and did emerge naturally from preexisting, non-living building blocks under the influence of natural laws (like gravity, etc), although the origin of those natural laws is not explained. Special creation says that God created life directly, either from nothing or from preexisting materials.
  
  Theistic evolution says one of two things. The first option is that there is a God, but He was not directly involved in the origin of life. He may have created the building blocks, He may have created the natural laws, He may even have created these things with the eventual emergence of life in mind, but at some point early on He stepped back and let His creation take over. He let it do what it does, whatever that is, and life eventually emerged from non-living material. This view is similar to atheistic evolution in that it presumes a naturalistic origin of life.

  The second alternative of theistic evolution is that God did not perform just one or two miracles to bring about the origin of life as we know it. His miracles were constant. He led life step by step down a path that took it from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity, similar to Darwin’s evolutionary tree of life (fish begot amphibians who begot reptiles who begot birds and mammals, etc). Where life was not able to evolve naturally (how does a reptile's limb evolve into a bird's wing naturally?), God stepped in. This view is similar to special creation in that it presumes that God acted supernaturally in some way to bring about life as we know it.
• 

  PrimateDave

  I'm guessing that quite a few Christians accept some idea of theistic evolution, and that is their prerogative. As such they are probably not the same as those Fundamentalists who want Creationism taught in public schools.

  Anyway, the discussion is starting to get a bit off topic. Do you think God used evolution, Alice? The point of this thread has to do with the latest attempt by the Watchtower book and magazine publishing company to promote their brand of Biblical literalism disguised with fallacy ridden pseudo-science. As the OP and others have pointed out, the Watchtower writers have a poor record when it comes to journalistic integrity (he who is faithful in what is least, etc....), and this brochure is a prime example of the lack of said integrity. What do you think of this brochure, Alice?
• 

  alice.in.wonderland

  "What do you think of this brochure, Alice?"

  It's just a brochure written for a diverse crowd, some who may consist of little scientific literacy, people in poorly developed nations. People with a thorough understanding of these things don't need the Watchtower Bible and Track Society to educate them on these things. The only concern about the brochure is if it contains inaccuracies that don't correlate with actual science.
• 

  notverylikely

  The only concern about the brochure is if it contains inaccuracies that don't correlate with actual science.

  It does.
• 

  alice.in.wonderland

  "The point of this thread has to do with the latest attempt by the Watchtower book and magazine publishing company to promote their brand of Biblical literalism disguised with fallacy ridden pseudo-science."

  What's in the scientific community on the subject of biological evolution?

  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
  
  Established in 1988 as a national resource for molecular biology information, NCBI creates public databases, conducts research in computational biology, develops software tools for analyzing genome data, and disseminates biomedical information - all for the better understanding of molecular processes affecting human health and disease. Searching for molecular Darwinism would require analyzing information stored in the databases that are divided into specific categories such as these:
  
  Nucleotide: Core subset of nucleotide sequence records
  GSS: Genome Survey Sequence records
  Protein: sequence database
  Genome: whole genome sequences
  Structure: three-dimensional macromolecular structures
  Taxonomy: organisms in GenBank
  
  This is two studies hosted by the NCBI.
  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323230/
  
  Bias in phylogenetic tree reconciliation methods: implications for vertebrate genome evolution
  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1779523/pdf/gb-2006-7-5-r43.pdf
  
  The gain and loss of genes during 600 million years of vertebrate evolution
  
  Background: Gene duplication is assumed to have played a crucial role in the evolution of vertebrate organisms. Apart from a continuous mode of duplication, two or three whole genome duplication events have been proposed during the evolution of vertebrates, one or two at the dawn of vertebrate evolution, and an additional one in the fish lineage, not shared with land vertebrates. Here, we have studied gene gain and loss in seven different vertebrate genomes, spanning an evolutionary period of about 600 million years.

  If the Watchtower Bible and Track Society published information like this people who don't understand phylogenetic tree reconciliation methods would not understand as it takes a while to learn. However, these studies are not evidence for evolution. The one that cites “bias” speaks for itself and indicates studies are always changing because of inaccuracies. A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor. Phylogenetic trees never accurately represent a species supposed evolutionary history in relation to other species. The data on which they are based is noisy and the genetic patterns modeled do not synchronize.

  The study detailing the gain and loss of genes during 600 million years of vertebrate evolution is not an adequate demonstration of macroevolution: species deriving complexity from simpler lifeforms. There's nothing in the study that indicates why the gain and loss of genes is in anyway related to vertebrate evolution.