Evolution Anyone???

by Steve Josef 50 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  2bfound

  mirror?... outside, neighbor? Thats it?.....
  Talkorigins...give me a break
  been there done that, goes the phrase.
  good bye Ianao.
• 

  ianao

  2bfound:

  mirror?... outside, neighbor? Thats it?.....
  Talkorigins...give me a break
  been there done that, goes the phrase.
  good bye Ianao.

  Yep that's right. Talkorigins is one of the better sites that deal directly with the subject matter and the retort the pseudo-arguments folks like you come up with. No need to re-invent the wheel if Jerry down the street already knows how to make one.

  Besides, it's better to back up what you say rather than play on someone's lack of research/understanding for the sake of self-justification.

  Sorry for butting in on your convo with Zep, but "evolution as it stands provides no reasonable answers for some of the greater questions" to you because you don't quite understand what evolution is all about. I also suspect that your personal biases on what is considered "reasonable" will most likely prevent you from doing so any time soon.
• 

  2bfound

  Zep, so very glad you checked out those sites. I hope you go back and compare with some of the articles in some of the other evolutionists web sites.

  “Bones of contention” Marvin Lubenow writes a very interesting survey of the whole
  Classification of human/ancestral fossils:

  What is not generally known is that this sequence, impressive as it seems, is a very artificial and arbitrary arrangement because 1) some fossils are selectively excluded if they do not fit well into the evolutionary scheme; 2) some human fossils are arbitrarily downgraded to make them appear to be evolutionary ancestors when they are in fact true humans; and 3) some non-human fossils are upgraded to make them appear to be human ancestors.
  “Origins reconsidered” Leakey and Lewin write of going from four legged walk to a two legged walk:

  Would have required an extensive remodeling of the ape's bone and muscle architecture and of the overall proportion in the lower half of the body. Mechanisms of gait are different, mechanics of balance are different, functions of major muscles are different--an entire functional complex had to be transformed for efficient bipedalism to be possible

  What I’m saying Zep is, when there is a bias in the field of paleontology as to what they are looking for, then whatever fits the idea gets exposed. What ever find obscures or contradicts the concept of accepted origins, and then it gets put in a dark shelf.
  The books speak of great many differences between ape and man, not just on the surface but muscle and bone structure.

  Zep, according to Gould and Eldridge, Macro-evolution is the sudden jump of species from one form to another without or very small ancestral lines.
  Micro-evolution is what Darwin proposed in his “the origin of species” small gradual accumulations of mutations. Although by his own admission IF this had been what occurred, then the strata would be full of transitional forms. But we know there are none; to which Gould responded with his Macro- evolution or “punctuated equilibrium”.

  Zep, you rightly proposed the wolf evolution to different varieties of dogs, but still only dogs or rather of the canine species and far from the feline. Rightly again you show the great variety of dogs, clearly the result of an evolutionary process (not macro). But here is where you err. All these varieties of dogs came about as a result of INTELLIGENT causes. In other words a superiorly intelligent being intervened to acquire these results, and that is the whole contention of creationism. For every effect there is a cause and if there is a cause there is a causer. Chance cannot and will never be able to explain complexity in the universe.
  Regards
  Rb.
• 

  2bfound

  Ianao, you sound like your taking your ball and going home?
  Sorry if I offended you.
  If talkorigins is all you got, then I'll wait for something better.

  and since our conversation was just going around in circles then what is the point. Lastly if your info is coming from talkorigins then I'm not surprised.
  But like I said to Zep, we can agree to disagree and still be friends.
  As for me accepting evolution soon?... well you said it best MIRRORS,MIRRORS, but have a great life and know what you believe.
  regards
  Rb.
• 

  ianao

  2bfound:

  For every effect there is a cause and if there is a cause there is a causer

  Who/What is God's causer?
• 

  ianao

  2bfound:

  Ianao, you sound like your taking your ball and going home?
  Sorry if I offended you.
  If talkorigins is all you got, then I'll wait for something better.

  LOL. You do that. Meanwhile hell freezuth over whilst thou waitest.

  BTW: You don't offend me at all, in fact, you amuse me greatly.

  and since our conversation was just going around in circles then what is the point.

  That tends to happen when you try to upset a world-view based on ideaology rather than what one can see. I know it's a defense mechanism you imploy, and I understand. Still, I can't help but be amused.

  Now, in regards to your alternative view to the various "evolutions", you should take a look at the writings of Zechariah Sitchen, as he references archeological evidence of more ancient texts then the biblical cannon you no doubt read on a daily basis that indicate a race of people that knew more about our solar system than we did today (until recently). He also, using your same misunderstanding of evolution, theorizes that we are monkey-alien hybrids from another solar system, planted here as a genetic experement. He refers to the thousands of genetic flaws that reside in our DNA as opposed to animals and the similarities in our DNA to primates as proof of his claims.

  You should read some of his material. He makes very good sense on many issues, especially on the sumerian tablet translations that he derived most of his speculative work from.

  Of course, I know you will never want to BELIEVE that you are a monkey-alien hybrid, as this would undermine the ideal that you so strongly adhere to.

  It's funny though, to see both of you using similar arguments debunking something you don't fully understand for the sake of promoting your own views, even down to your bipedal argument. Two people so strung out on what something SHOULD be, instead of what something IS.
• 

  2bfound

  Ianao, you see now you went and got mad. No need for that.
  But then again maybe you are mad... Monkey-alien?

  Let me catch my breath... Ok well monkey-aliens huh? ah... what planet or solar systems where these hybrids from? and I guess it's only befitting to ask who seeded this superior monkey- alien hybrid bypedal geneticaly altered race? and then ah... who seeded them and ah... who seeded them and ahhhh... who seeded them?
  It sounds like your caught into circular reasoning.
  Ianao, if you were serious then I gave you to much credit, if you're joking that was a good laugh.
  Any way it always surprises me that when our ideology is under attack the conversation gets awfully weird.
  You said it a defense mechanism. But again Ianao, I'm not asking you to believe as I do. If your research has taken you to conclude that evolution is a fact then accept it and live with it. I have heard better.
  Regards, or Live long and prosper...?
  Rb.
• 

  ianao

  2bfound

  Ianao, you see now you went and got mad. No need for that.

  LOL

  But then again maybe you are mad... Monkey-alien?

  Not my theories 2b. (please re-read my previous post to you).

  Let me catch my breath... Ok well monkey-aliens huh? ah... what planet or solar systems where these hybrids from? and I guess it's only befitting to ask who seeded this superior monkey- alien hybrid bypedal geneticaly altered race? and then ah... who seeded them and ah... who seeded them and ahhhh... who seeded them?
  It sounds like your caught into circular reasoning.

  Try reading sitchen's materials yourself for answers to your questions.

  To re-quote myself....

  ianao to 2bfound: Now, in regards to your alternative view to the various "evolutions", you should take a look at the writings of Zechariah Sitchen, as he references archeological evidence of more ancient texts then the biblical cannon you no doubt read on a daily basis that indicate a race of people that knew more about our solar system than we did today (until recently). He also, using your same misunderstanding of evolution, theorizes that we are monkey-alien hybrids from another solar system, planted here as a genetic experement. He refers to the thousands of genetic flaws that reside in our DNA as opposed to animals and the similarities in our DNA to primates as proof of his claims.

  Hence my recommendation that you read his materials as you may see why you are both wrong. But in leu of your previous posts, I seriously doubt it will be of much use to you.

  Looks like you still have a reading comprehension problem.
• 

  ianao

  2bfound:

  It sounds like your caught into circular reasoning.

  I'm not the one defending the un-created creator, stemming from nowhere.
• 

  Zep

  2bfound,

  Rightly again you show the great variety of dogs, clearly the result of an evolutionary process (not macro). But here is where you err. All these varieties of dogs came about as a result of INTELLIGENT causes. In other words a superiorly intelligent being intervened to acquire these results, and that is the whole contention of creationism.

  I'll just try and deal with what you say here. The variety of dogs has been the result of SELECTIVE BREEDING by humans.What happens is this: For example, if a breeder wants a taller dog then he selects the offspring of certain dogs that seem to be taller than the rest. He then allows these taller dogs to breed with each other, and then their taller offspring to breed after that, and so on. Eventually it ends up that you get a much taller dog than original. God didn't create the variety of dogs. Man took an intial wild dog and has just selectivily bred it for thousands of years. He has done this to the point where we get dogs like the Britsh bulldog which cant give birth without human aid and all sorts of other dog breeds with genetic disease. We have done this to the point of going from a wild dog like the wolf to breeds like a Pekinese. Take a look at a pekinese dog. Its a BIG change we have managed to bring upon the dog world. From wolf to pekinese over a few thousand of years. Theoretically it seems quite sensible that we could go further and move even further away from the wolf. The only difference between Artifical seletion and Natural selection is that the former is done by human whim, in that man selects what he likes and lets those selected animals breed. Whereas in the case of Natural selection it is those dogs that are fittest that breed that continue. Both are the same process essentially, just with a different acting pressure. Artifical selection is very strong evidence for evolution i feel.