The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.

by Nickolas 269 Replies latest jw friends

  • Awen

    @ sizemilk You wrote:

    "Even in the context of the link you provided this is not at all true. It may be an accurate description of the stratigraphic status quo at any given time within the parameters a particular taxonomical range, but genera, like species and other classifications in the taxonomic hierarchy, are all part of evolutionary progression. Variegation of genera is every bit as valid as variegation of species. It is simply further up the taxonomic heirarchy and therefore expressed over far greater periods of time than say species variegation. Time has the effect of greater variegal seperation of genera, through the more protracted extinction of common genetic ancestry. It's important to remember that extinction results from geological and cosmological cataclysm as well as gradual environmental change and natural selection. Evolution shows us that over time, the opposite is true . . . that new and distinct Genera emerge in the same way as new and distinct species. It's simply that the boundaries, through time, have now achieved a wider gulf of seperation.

    To illustrate . . . it's like trying to positively identify the structure and shape of the branches and trunk of a tree by observing the new shoots of spring growth only . . . the abundance of the current growth show the tree must be there . . . but it is only from the evidence remaining that any semblance of the reality can be discerned. In terms of evolution, some smaller outer branches can be observed through the fossil record, but harmonious synchronicity is not assured, let alone an accurate picture of the whole "tree".

    Interestingly, Nickolas's well cited points (in this and previous threads) on the incomprehensible vastness of the dimensions of time and space involved, lend ever increasing weight to the probability, even strong likelihood in terms of statistical probability, of this gradual, but very extensive progression IMHO."

    I think I get what you are saying here. That the further we go up the Taxonomic web the more correlation there is between the species. I would accept this as accurate IF there were fossils backing up this claim. I have been looking and so far the only examples I can find are in the Hominid species, including Homo Sapiens and the groups preceding us. I have one problem with this. Humans do not look the same all over the world. We have differing facial features, jawbone structures, etc. Yet we are shown but one or two examples of Hominids from the past and are told those are our Human ancestors. How do we know that this isn't simply a variation in the species we call Homo Sapiens? Now I understand that there is a 98.4% shared genetic ancestry with Apes which would logically suggest we are descended from them, except the fact that they are in a different species than we are meaning among other things we cannot cross breed. Not that I would want to but it begs the question why not if we have only a 1.6% difference in our genetic code that is mostly made up of deletions, insertions and duplications? This genome seems to make all the difference in the world as far as disntinguishing us from Apes and yet it has developed very quickly as opposed to the gradual process of natural selection in an evolutionary model.

  • Awen

    @ sizemilk. I wasn't trying to be mean. I am trying to understand something that is currently beyond my comprehension. I only asked for your sources so that I can see what you see. If I were in college and writing a paper on evolution my professor would ask me to cite my sources. I also take issue with your suggestion that I have "cherry-picked" my ideas. This would be dishonest and as I have already said I purposely stayed away from Christian Apologetic websites that would have an agenda and went to the scientific academic websites for my information.

    I apologize if I have offended you with my remarks, such was not my intention at all.

    @ EntirelyPossible

    Wow, such anger and hatred. I'm sorry you were hurt by the WTBTS (as we all were). No need to take it out on me. Also I have been very polite and kind in my remarks in seeking to understand what many here already know. Too bad you're unable to be. No problem, I'm used to it. In Psychology it's called Cognitive Dissonance. Think about it.

  • EntirelyPossible

    Wow, such anger and hatred.

    Not at all. It's quite simply an utter and complete lack of tolerance for willful ignorance, particularly when it hurt us all as a society.

    I'm sorry you were hurt by the WTBTS (as we all were).

    Me too. But this has nothing to do with that.

    No need to take it out on me.

    There is no need. You could, for instance, educate yourself. You have all the tools you need.

    I have been very polite and kind in my remarks in seeking to understand what many here already know

    No, you haven't at ALL. You aren't seeking to understand anything, you are willfully ignorant and attempting to spread it and promote it.

    Too bad you're unable to be.

    I AM unable to be polite to willful ignorance. It hurts us all as a people. I would just as soon be kind to a harmful virus. Kind and polite to you? Certainly. Kind and polite to the ignorance and agenda you seek to spread? Not at all.

    No problem, I'm used to it.

    You can easily fix the reason why. The power is within you.

    In Psychology it's called Cognitive Dissonance. Think about it.

    Cognitive dissonance has nothing to do with this. Perhaps you should read that link, learn what it is and get back to me. Think about it. Then think some more. Then take a class. Then open your mind. Then take the class again. Then learn something. THEN get back to me.

  • sizemik

    Awen . . . I'm just going to pick on one statement from your last post in order to pinpoint the problem of trying to link species as they appear today.

    Now I understand that there is a 98.4% shared genetic ancestry with Apes which would logically suggest we are descended from them.

    You see . . . it is not the teaching of evolution that we descended from "Apes" as we know them today . . . rather, that some primate species (including Homo) that have survived until today . . . have a shared common ancestor. This is quite different from the belief that we "descended from Apes" as this immediately suggest that there should exist some transitory species connecting "Humans" with "Gorillas" or "Chimpanzees". Any transitory species will only connect current primates with a common ancestor at best . . . and may possess attributes not common to either.

    I see you have probably read this from your quote . . . but consider the following explanation slowly and carefully . . . some of it is "suggested" by evidence, sure . . . but give particular attention to the time periods involved, and the limitations of the fossil record. Most importantly . . . realise that none of the primates that exist today, necessarily bear any physical resemblance to the common ancestor. They have all been subject to changing environment. (emphasis mine BTW)

    Species close to the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans may be represented by Nakalipithecus fossils found in Kenya and Ouranopithecus found in Greece. Molecular evidence suggests that between 8 and 4 million years ago, first the gorillas, and then the chimpanzees (genus Pan) split off from the line leading to the humans; human DNA is approximately 98.4% identical to that of chimpanzees when comparing single nucleotide polymorphisms (see human evolutionary genetics). The fossil record of gorillas and chimpanzees is quite limited. Both poor preservation (rain forest soils tend to be acidic and dissolve bone) and sampling bias probably contribute to this problem.

    Other hominines likely adapted to the drier environments outside the equatorial belt, along with antelopes, hyenas, dogs, pigs, elephants, and horses. The equatorial belt contracted after about 8 million years ago. Fossils of these hominans - the species in the human lineage following divergence from the chimpanzees - are relatively well known.

    There exists also the difficulties presented by sampling bias. Many species simply lived in ecosystems which were not favourable to the preservation of fossils at all . . . and so leave no evidence whatsoever in the fossil record. This is not easily determined but can be reasonably accounted for through other forms of evidenc eg; genetics.

    In statistics, sampling bias is when a sample is collected in such a way that some members of the intended population are less likely to be included than others. It results in a biased sample, a non-random sample [1] of a population (or non-human factors) in which all individuals, or instances, were not equally likely to have been selected. [2] If this is not accounted for, results can be erroneously attributed to the phenomenon under study rather than to the method of sampling.

    Source: Wikipedia - Human Evolution

  • Awen

    Thank you sizemilk for pointing out the issue of the shared common ancestor. I admit I might have skimmed over the article somwhat and missed that particular point. Nevertheless I thank you for educating me.


  • sizemik
    That the further we go up the Taxonomic web the more correlation there is between the species. I would accept this as accurate IF there were fossils backing up this claim.

    As I mentioned in an earler post, the taxonomic heirarchy is probably best illustrated as a tree. A tree comes out of the ground as a single trunk and then goes through a "branching" process . . . splitting randomly into seperate branches that only ever diverge. As in this illustration . . .

    As time progresses their relative connection to a branching point becomes more and more remote. Endeavouring to map the tree from the relative positions of the "tips" becomes very difficult unless the dead tree is lying on the ground in it's entirety. The fossil record does not present us with a dead tree lying on the ground in front of us . . . but enough remnants exist as to determine the nature of the tree . . . if not it's exact shape.

    The fossil record is not complete and never will be . . . but it nevertheless adds to the tree in a way which is consistent with what we would expect from the Evolutionary model. Sorry if this is laboring the point, but a grasp of the overall concept of evolutionary theory is a pre-requisite to determining the relevance of the various evidential elements which support it. In terms of the accepted Evolutionary Model, the fossil record very much supports it, along with evolutionary genetics.

  • PSacramento
    The only issue I can think of is the Methods that followers of Christ use to propagate their "truth" or "revelation".
    I can not handle stuff that is "over the top", "flamboyant" if you will. I don't need to know what your beliefs are, unless we are trying to come to and understanding
    I want to see how you communicate with others, without using the "christ tag" every interaction.
    For me it is distasteful.
    I am all ears otherwise.

    You are not the first tosay this my friend and I totally understand and agree.

    To many times Christians speak of Christ in a very "unChristlike" manner and other times, they speak like the person they are spaeking to is at the end of the journey, rather than the beginning.

    One must first "walk" in another shoes before we start fitting them for a new type of shoe.

    I enjoy discussing God and Christ with people that want to discuss them but I don't expect conversion or even agreement, I only hope for understanding from their part and I hope for myself to understand THEIR position.

    That is really all we can do.

    The rest will be what it will be.

  • Awen

    @ bohm I see what you did there. You took one sentence, focused on that and tried to discredit the entire post without actually refuting anything.

    @ EntirelyPossible I also see what you did as well. Calling me unintelligent, misinformed, not having a grasp of concepts while at the same time not offering one single refute of anything I actually posted. This is referred to as misdirection (the stage magic type). Look here at my right hand folks while my left hand does something else. Also you said that I didn't understand the definition of Cognitive Dissonance. Perhaps not as you understand it. So let me explain what I meant by it as it applies to you dear EntirelyPossible.

    Cognitive Dissonance
    This is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.
    Dissonance increases with:
    The importance of the subject to us.
    How strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict.
    Our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.

    I had focused on the third point as I can see it in your posts quite clearly. I suppose the same could be said for bohm.

    You read things here on these forums that challenge your current beliefs and when unable to refute the argument you create conflict within yourself. So rather than conclude that your viewpoint may in fact be in error, you resort to name calling and tearing apart the person (not their arguments).

    I also see this at play in your posts.

    Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

    Feel free to refute any of this. That is if you can without resorting to ad hominem or allowing your own Cognitive Dissonance to overtake you.

    You see what I did there? I just did exactly what you have been doing. I feel no pride in resorting to things such as this but trying to have a meaningful, respectful conversation with either of you without resorting to this type of behavior has thus far proved ineffectual.

  • Nickolas

    I've been bitten once again by the JWN editor. After composing a lengthy response to the past 24 hours of commentary, a task to which I devoted the better part of an hour, it was entirely obliterated when I hit the Submit button. I am beginning to realise why many people compose in some other medium and cut and paste into here, but that doesn't always work well either. I was under the impression that someone was working to debug this board. Anyway, I have work to do today so must be off, back this evening. Carry on.

  • Twitch


    That problem and it's resultant irritation is directly proportional to the length of post..:)

    I usually use notepad as a scratch pad for long posts and copy to the edit window here but you have to use CRTL X,C,V (cut, copy, paste) instead of the mouse or menu as this editor has issues with the latter, at least in Firefox.

    Interesting dialogue here BTW

Share this