by Freedom rocks 50 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • StarryNight9

    "Here's a recent large sweeping gene survey study that claims 90% of all animals appeared recently at the same time as man. Amazingly, the study also claims that "species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between." Sounds close to what you’d expect to find based on the Genesis account of origins."
    "If we were created by a being who is capable of starting life as we know it, it is reasonable to assume that he has the power over death as well."

    I'll say it again... evolution has nothing to do with how biologic life came to be... sigh

    One genetic study doesn't prove anything (one way or the other). Studies aren't even considered viable until the same results are reproduced by multiple independent scientists. We have a really bad habit of hearing one initial study (which we don't truly understand), drawing an uninformed conclusion, and blasting it at people as "proof" of our convictions. Media gets really click-bait with that stuff - competing for a cool headline. You also can't forget the rest of Genesis because you've found one sentence that sorta lines up with a yet-to-be-tested study. Don't even get me started on Noah's Ark...

  • cofty
    study that claims 90% of all animals appeared recently at the same time as man. Amazingly, the study also claims that "species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between." - Perry

    This is a classic example of creationists who are either too dim to understand the science or who just don't care as long as they can twist it to fit their superstitions.

    Perry has raised this before and I have explained it in some detail. It in no way challenges evolution and totally destroys creationism. I am not going to bother explaining again here because Perry won't bother to read it and in a few weeks he will dishonestly repeat the same bullshit.

  • cofty
    Cofty - I'm waiting for the God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth to arrive so I can read them. Its hard reading everything on my phone

    Good choices.

  • StarryNight9

    Crofty - thanks for the heads-up about Perry. I looked around at his posts and you're right... totally not worth the work of responding.

  • pale.emperor

    Perry, can you tell me why this god of yours created the guinea worm? A creature who's sole life purpose is to bury itself into the eyesballs of cattle and children and make them blind by eating the eyeball from the inside out?

    Or how about cancer? What's the purpose of this "creation"? The little girl born with bone cancer which, apparently, your god created?

  • Finkelstein

    An example of Creationist's intellectual dishonesty .........

    Evolution doesn't exist, but biological genetic adaption does .

  • doubtfull1799


    we can try to ground certain conclusions with things we know to be facts (premises) now. Things like:
    1. All life comes from previous life
    2. All information comes from a mind
    3. All books have authors

    Um, premises are not the same as facts! They are something basic we assume to be true for the sake of argument or the basis or a syllogism. But they are not facts just because we claim them to be true. A fact needs to be demonstrably true, though can never necessarily be proven in the same way a mathematical fact can be proven.

    Your premises are flawed for various reasons.

    1. The claim that a transcendent God exists falsifies this premises because riot is making a claim that their is an exception to the rule - God is an example of a "lifeform" that did not come from previous life.

    2. Yes, many forms of information come from a mind, but not necessarily ALL forms of information. Information structured in a certain way tends to be organised baby a mind, but there are other forms of information that are formed by natural laws. You can claim that those natural laws come from a mind but that just gets back in a circle to post one. Which brings us to the problem with point 3...

    3. I have no problem with this premise, but when you conflate the kind of information in a book with other kinds of information (like that of DNA, which is what I assume you are implying here?) we have a problem.

  • iwasblind

    Hi Freedom

    The problem is how we had been programmed - we thought we had "the truth" and so we try to replace that with another truth.

    This has been a source of frustration for me too. While I am not a creationist, I see far more in the universe that the evolutionist standpoint explains.

    A very good friend of mine says "I believe everything and I believe nothing".

    At the moment, I treat all of the "holy books" like any other archeological writing.

    I love what scientists are finding about our brains, the quantum world and the universe, but there is so much unexplained - so I have stopped seeking "the truth" and just enjoy seeking.

    Also, Dawkins and others tend to dismiss our consciousness, but that is all we have to see this realm in, so I am trying to just "be" and experience life. I personally feel a connection to something else but again that is not proof for you it is just my experience.

    Cofty is very knowledgable - a good man - and Perry knows his ancient Jewish/Greek/Roman scroll (the Bible) - but you will go nuts looking for absolute truth and it will rob you of just learning.

  • Finkelstein

    Creationism appeals to human emotions in ways that evolution can not such as there is an afterlife, redemption from sin and basically its quite easy to understand and accept.

    Scientific evolution based from physical evidence is much harder to understand and learn and doesn't offer an afterlife or a rewarding savior to rid of mankind's enduring perils.

  • Perry


    The findings were published in the peer reviewed journal Human Evolution. The findings directly impact the theory of evolution. For example:

    It is classic evolutionary textbook biology, to assume that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.

    But is that true?

    "The answer is no," said Stoeckle, the lead author.

Share this