.
if i had to answer this i suppose i would say im not sure which one i believe, i have always wondered why the universe is so huge and always wondered what its role is and how it affects us.. im always fascinated when i look up at the sky and think to myself i feel so small in such a huge universe a sought of cold isolated feeling is what i experience and then i think, i wonder why this planet came to support life after all it was supposedly all happened by chance.. dont get me wrong im no scientist but i think i need more convincing regarding evolution.. can anyone help regarding these questions
rem again:
The idea that humans decended from ancient fish-like creatures is a fact. The mechanism of how it happened is a theory. We call that theory "Evolution" and it contains several mechanisms, such as Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, Genetic Drift, etc.
rem
Edited by - hooberus on 29 October 2002 19:54:32
.
if i had to answer this i suppose i would say im not sure which one i believe, i have always wondered why the universe is so huge and always wondered what its role is and how it affects us.. im always fascinated when i look up at the sky and think to myself i feel so small in such a huge universe a sought of cold isolated feeling is what i experience and then i think, i wonder why this planet came to support life after all it was supposedly all happened by chance.. dont get me wrong im no scientist but i think i need more convincing regarding evolution.. can anyone help regarding these questions
rem said:
hooberus,
I think I already answered your question, but I'll be explicit since you seem to have some type of fascination with this issue.
Yes, I accept that a certain line of ancient fish-like creatures are ancestors to humans and certain other modern organisms, just as Evolutionary theory predicts.
Happy? Or do I need to explain it once more?
rem
Edited by - hooberus on 29 October 2002 20:2:15
.
if i had to answer this i suppose i would say im not sure which one i believe, i have always wondered why the universe is so huge and always wondered what its role is and how it affects us.. im always fascinated when i look up at the sky and think to myself i feel so small in such a huge universe a sought of cold isolated feeling is what i experience and then i think, i wonder why this planet came to support life after all it was supposedly all happened by chance.. dont get me wrong im no scientist but i think i need more convincing regarding evolution.. can anyone help regarding these questions
Virtually all creationist scientists accept micro-evolution as a verified phenomena. In fact I believe that it was a creationist named Blythe who first proposed it 24 years before Darwin (However my memory is fuzzy on this so I'll have to check.) Anyway the fact that micro-evolution has been observed doesn't prove macro-evolution. The two are in many ways opposite processes.
Micro-evolution starts with a large gene pool which divides by migration and selection ending up with change within basic types. (for example all of the 200 or so varieties of dogs coming from a basic wolf-type). this can even go so far as a new species technically being created. In this category we would include selective breeding as well as different kinds of wheat etc.
Macro-evolution starts with a small gene pool which expands by mutation and selection to change between basic kinds. (for example parcticles to people).
The real issue being debated is macro-evolution.
Edited by - hooberus on 29 October 2002 19:40:52
so then, as we examine the context of these verses we ask the question "when?".
42 "...you do not know on what day your lord is coming.
44 ...at an hour that you do not think to be it, the son of man is coming.
Thanks for your response apocalypse. Sometime when you wish I would like to hear your questions. I may also later post some info on witnessing techniques involving the FDS doctrine. I may incorporate some of your work when I talk to witnesses in the future. I wish you the best and I hope that if you have any family in watchtower bondage that they will be freed.
since i have stopped attending the meetings, i have had a loss of faith in god.
i consider myself an agnostic teetering on being a full blown atheist.
while in school this last semester i have been taking courses that emphasize evolution.
stink,
Are you aware that the theory of plate tectonics was first proposed by a creationist?
Also the theory is accepted today by most creationist scientists.
so then, as we examine the context of these verses we ask the question "when?".
42 "...you do not know on what day your lord is coming.
44 ...at an hour that you do not think to be it, the son of man is coming.
apocalypse,
I agree with you that the Watchtower has a faulty doctrine with regard to the "Faithful and Discreet Slave Class" I have studied the watchtowers interpretation of this "slave class" doctrine considerably . I have a book soley on the subject. I am even in the process of purchasing a set of Watchtower Reprints at considerable expense so that I can show witnesses what the WT used to teach on this subject. Since I agree with you that the WT is not the slave, I decided to respond to the last part of your post where you compared the FDS doctrine to the Trinity doctrine. The Athanasian creed is the primary guide used by both the WT and Trinitarians. Therefore we should go to it for the definition of the doctrine rather than rely on the largely uninformed opinions of people at the doors who have for the most part never studied it.
Lets look at a few excerpts from the Athansasian creed. I am quoting from memory but I believe the quotes are accurate.
1."there are not three Gods but one God" (see Deuteronomy 6:4)
2. "Christ is equal to the Father as touching his Godhood, inferior to the Father as touching his manhood" (John 5:18; John 14:28)
3. "neither confounding the persons" (Christ and the Father are separate persons)
I know that you don't believe in the Trinity doctrine, but do you at least agree with me that the WT has misrepresented it?
i lived next door to a jw for 3 years and we became very good friends although it was often a strained relationship.
i would read the books and even listen to the tapes from kh she gave me but, when i had questions or showed an opinion she would become so angry.
i was reared a southern baptist and still am today and claim jesus christ as my savior through his grace.
You might ask her some questions such as:
Is questioning a religious organization that claims to represent God the same as questioning God himself?
Is doubting a religious organization that claims to represent God the same as doubting God?
Should loyalty to God be placed above loyalty to any religious organization?
so then, as we examine the context of these verses we ask the question "when?".
42 "...you do not know on what day your lord is coming.
44 ...at an hour that you do not think to be it, the son of man is coming.
" The Watchtower's "faithful slave" doctrine is as self-contradictory and confusing as is the Catholic and Protestant "trinity" teaching. I personally have no stomach for either. Just as the churches teach contradictory and false dogma, and hate those who expose them, the Watchtower does in like manner."
apocalypse are you aware of the critical fact that the Watchtower misrepresents what the trinity doctrine actually teaches in order to make the doctrine seen false and contradictory?
I don't wish scripturally discuss the trinity doctrine here, but it is critical that you understand that the watchtower has misrepresented the trinity doctrine as being "three Gods" and as being "three Gods in one person" when in reality the trinity doctrine does not teach these absurdities. Also the trinity doctrine does not teach that "Jesus and the Father are the same person" or that "Jesus prayed to himself." The trinity doctrine also does not deny that God's name is Jehovah or Yahweh and that he is the only God.
You may not believe that trinity doctrine is scriptural but at least try to understandwhat it really teaches before rejecting it.
sorry, i don't have time to search the site right now.
this bloody french isp is rubbish, and i keep getting dropped when i try anything that takes more than 10 seconds.
has the society ever come up with any intelligent reasoning to counter the ages that carbon dating/science has given to various artifacts, i.e.
rem said:
"Creationists, on the other hand, would never change their position no matter what the evidence. By definition they can not even consider evidence that goes against the Bible. That, my friend, is bias."
rem shortly later said:
" I believe things that are backed with evidence. I'm not always right. In fact, I used to be a Creationist too until I took a good look at the facts. It took a lot of research and intellectual honesty to finally come to the conclusion that Creationism is wishful thinking."
Note the contradiction!
Edited by - hooberus on 27 October 2002 20:54:14
Edited by - hooberus on 27 October 2002 20:57:39
sorry, i don't have time to search the site right now.
this bloody french isp is rubbish, and i keep getting dropped when i try anything that takes more than 10 seconds.
has the society ever come up with any intelligent reasoning to counter the ages that carbon dating/science has given to various artifacts, i.e.
Speaking of being "proven false"
The concept of an evolutionary "origin of life" has for all practical purposes been shown to be impossible and hense scientifically falsified!
Since the first "link in the evolutionary chain" is absolutely broken your evolutionary scientists should (if they were really unbiased and dispassionate as you pretend) have changed their viewpoint, like when the earth was shown to be round. But instead like the "flat-earthers" they continue to hold onto a false-view despite the evidence.
The statement that an evolutionary origin of life has for all practical purposes been falsified is WAY more scientific and substianted than your statement that "creationism was proven false"
Edited by - hooberus on 27 October 2002 20:40:32
