by Shining One 94 Replies latest watchtower bible
If we have been controlled, scolded, impugned, ordered about, bullied and stunned into silent awe by the wagging finger of Authority we are apt to slink quietly into our pew and bow our head, whisper our frightened entreaty and crave the ineffable touch of magic that will open our cocoon into butterfly-hood.Wow, you paint a dismal picture, Terry. Is that how you really see it?
Well, yes.
I invite rebuttal.
Terry
Funkyderek,
Yeah thanks, Ive been reading alot from "talkorigins" believe it or not.BTW theres a interesting review of the program ape to man (History Channnel) on Talk origins. Kinda funny actually. After watching that tho I was left with, boy the evolutionist really doesnt have much in the way of real progression of bones as the lay person invisions transition. From what the piece presented.
After watching that tho I was left with, boy the evolutionist really doesnt have much in the way of real progression of bones as the lay person invisions transition.
It can be very difficult for the layperson to appreciate how unlikely it is for a fossil to form. Most organisms decompose on death or are eaten by other animals and never get a chance to fossilise. It would be wonderful if a complete generation-by-generation record existed, but the truth is we are lucky to have any fossils to work with at all.
Equally difficult to comprehend can be the confidence with which small fragments of fossilised bones are labelled as parts of one species or another, or even how they are distinguished from lumps of rock. But experts in any field can astound us with the depth and breadth of their knowledge. For example, I could hardly tell the difference between a priceless diamond and a well-cut piece of glass, whereas even the most sophisticated fake is unlikely to fool a jeweller for very long. A sound engineer can hear the most minute distortions on a record that the average person would never notice. Similarly, palaeontologists can quickly identify something as an important find that you or I might dismiss as an uninteresting lump of rock. Of course, while we may never approach this level of expertise, we can be confident in the results due to the peer review process. Just like getting a second opinion from a doctor, the agreement of several experts in a field gives us added confidence that they're on the right track.
In reality, despite what creationists would have you believe, the only disagreement among real scientists about evolution is in the details. Apart from a relatively small number of (mostly American) religious fundamentalists, all biologists, geologists and palaeontologists accept the fact of evolution.
EW,
>> After watching that tho I was left with, boy the evolutionist really doesnt have much in the way of real progression of bones as the lay person invisions transition.
That's because the way a lay person invisions transitions is not how Evolution actually works.
rem
elder,
that really was a funny bit of propaganda/rhetoric you posted. you could start by replying in your own words, to the points brought up in the article on talk origins that deal with the fallacies you posted. however, you should also know a few things regarding evolution vs. creationism:
the act of presupposing; a supposition made prior to having knowledge (as for the purpose of argument)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
After watching that tho I was left with, boy the evolutionist really doesnt have much in the way of real progression of bones as the lay person invisions transition. From what the piece presented.
that history channel presentation was quite poor from what i hear. supposedly it had paleontologists spotting a fragment of bone from a moving car and stopping only to discover that it was an amazing find. paleontology, does not work like this. indiana jones is sexy, but it's not science.
but who cares? it's TV for christ's sake. the producers were trying to make it entertaining so that lay people would be interested in learning anything about this fascinating subject.
you act as though scientists were part of a religion, and that we keep dropping the ball on official chruch doctrine. this is simply a falsehood. you keep implying and stating that there is no evidence for evolution, paleontological or otherwise, and yet you ignore the sources i posted to you. you ignore questions and challenges. this is dishonest. lay person or not, you really have no right to read creationist web sites, apolgetic books AND weigh in on evolution being a legitimate theory or not.
would jesus be proud of you for knowingly spreading disinformation to the detriment of humanity? are you being a good christian? i'll let your conscience decide.
again:
i would like one link from you that proves that we were created by god. i want full proof, not just circular logic. i want evidence that not only turns the theory of evolution on it's head, but also does a better job of explaining the data and answering where we come from, how we evolved, and what we can expect to find in the future.
i await your evidence for creation.
TS
Rex said...
The science behind evolution is not empirical, but forensic. Because evolution took place in history, its scientific investigations are after the fact—no testing, no observations, no repeatability, no falsification, nothing at all like physics. . . . I think this is what the public discerns—that evolution is just a bunch of just-so stories disguised as legitimate science."
Another evolutionist makes an interesting admission. He says: "Contrary to their public image, scientists are normal, flawed human beings." They are as capable of prejudice, covetousness, pride, deceitfulness, etc., as anyone.
Can't the same be said of religion?
Let's try it out to see if it sounds right...
Because religion took place in history, its investigations are after the fact - no testing, observations, repeatability, falsification, etc. I think this is what the public discerns, that religion is just a bunch of just-so stories disguised as the word of god.
Religious scholars (and believers) are normal, flawed human beings. They are as capable of prejudice, covetousness, pride, deceitfulness, etc. as anyone.
Hmmm. Your "logic" works both ways, doesn't it.
Uhhh Tetly,
Similiarity does not mean 'same species' nor does it constitute proof. otherwise we wpuld hear it trumpeted throughout the world: "missing link found!!!" Remember the drawings from the "monkey trial", how those Great Intelligent Scientists extrapolated a complete lineage of evolution from a single molar? It was later found to be a hog's tooth, how appropriate! I wonder how many Piltdown Man shulls make up that exhibit?
Apes are 97% like us in the DNA (as far as our knowledge goes in that) and that still does not make them anyhthing close to 'same species' or even 'previous species'. If you keep telling yourself evolution has been proved you are in a fantasy world of pink, invisible unicorns! LOL
Have a nice day,
R.
We have lots of Neanderthal specimens:
Hey RUM,
These are very long lived humans, not another type of man. Also, why do you think a older species would have a bigger brain than 'modern man'? De-volution! The world is decaying, the universe is slowing down, it is in the midst of entropy.
Rex
Science is hard. Belief is easy.
That's true but belief is what backs up 'naturalism' just as it backs up 'religion'. In fact, it takes more belief and faith to believe the present 'scientific' claims than it does.......scripture!
R.
EW
FD said "It can be very difficult for the layperson to appreciate how unlikely it is for a fossil to form. Most organisms decompose on death or are eaten by other animals and never get a chance to fossilise. It would be wonderful if a complete generation-by-generation record existed, but the truth is we are lucky to have any fossils to work with at all."
Trust evolutionists, they are about as reliable as the watchtower. You just aren't smart enough to be an evolutionist. Like Joseph Smith said; "you need the eyes of faith to see it."
Did you hear the fairy tale about the polymers that one day just magically decided to replicate themselves?
D Dog
