JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Either that or it is just plain stupid to put human limitations on a limitless being who is capable of doing whatever fulfills his purpose. You have no idea who you are talking about or what he is capable of doing.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Any JW want to take a stab at this one?
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Either that or it is just plain stupid to put human limitations on a limitless being who is capable of doing whatever fulfills his purpose. You have no idea who you are talking about or what he is capable of doing.
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Direction requires a director...something that intelligently sees the potential for something and makes modifications to create benefits or eliminate flaws. How do random chance mutations qualify as being directed? Can a creature will itself to change over time? Did my dogs will themselves to grow extra fur on their bellies when we moved to the mountains?
Or was there an existing "program" in their genetics that just automatically caused that to happen?
Rules require a law maker. Who made the laws to which evolution must adhere?
Can a change occur to the extent of one being transforming itself over time into another creature entirely? Or are there genetic limits imposed as Genesis states? If all life evolved from the primordial soup, then that means that all the creatures that have ever existed were just the result of undirected chance mutations which were always beneficial. What are the odds for that ever happenings?
If a giraffe's neck was such a benefit...why didn't they all evolve them? Where are the intermediate creatures with necks half the size leading to what we see today?
As to the questions in post# 35 How would you explain those things?
What has been offered so far is as pathetic as all the rest of the evolution theorising I have ever read. Supposition...guessing....nothing more. Offering what men "think" "might have happened" is not proof.
You rely on interpretation of the evidence, which means you have to have faith in the interpreters. These men have an agenda to uphold....they can't let the side down or be made to look foolish amongst their peers. All the findings have to support what the various fields of science have led people to believe or they will be laughed out of existence.
Last edited:
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
That's what I call hedging your bets. You can't believe in a grand Creator who specifically tells us that he created the various "kinds" of life on this planet and placate the evolutionists by compromising. I will never compromise on what my God has said or done regarding the creative works, for which he deserves the full credit. His designs are amazing. Ask those in the field of bio-mimetics how good his designs are.
Learning From Designs in Nature — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
I think their God will disown them for not standing up for him when the opposition appears to be winning. That is a form of cowardice IMO. Weight of numbers has never meant much to the Creator.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
No, it doesn't.
A bird can fly in a direction.
The sun is moving in a direction, and so is our solar system.
A rock falling down the hill is falling in a direction.
So you're obviously wrong already there.
If that's how you think evolution works, then I understand why you're against it, because that's not how it works. So the answer is, no, the dogs did not grow themselves extra fur.
Yes and no. The genetics changed, because of the "program" in biochemistry and physics.
Doesn't matter on the issue of evolution being true or not. Actually, if God made the laws that evolution adhere to, it's fine with me. Evolution is then true, and I can't see why you are rejecting it. You're on one hand argue that God can't create evolution, and then now you're trying to argue that God would have made the laws for evolution. If God had made the laws for evolution, why are you fighting it so hard?
They're great according to some new theories. It's probably a very common and likely result of the energy potentials that we can see in nature. When you have massive sources of energy, then this is probably what you should expect to see, life of some form or another.
Because there are many ways of skinning a cat. There's not a one and only one solution to a problem in nature. Some species grow tall, some smaller. Some fatter and stronger, some slimmer and faster. It's the effect of filling environmental niches.
I've missed it, or perhaps I did answer it but you didn't really bother reading or understanding what I said.
Ah. So it's better that you think that Genesis happened, but not according to how Genesis describes it, but rather according to your religion's interpretation of Genesis. Genesis says clearly that God commanded the world to produce life, not that he did it directly himself. That means that life came out of the world (earth, sky, etc), just like evolution says. The one being wrong according to the Bible here is you, not me.
Except that I took classes in this and held some of the evidence in my hands... I had the chance to interpret some of the evidence with my own eyes.
No they don't. One of them died last year in heart attack and was one of the most generous human beings I've met. He was taking his own money and time to help a native tribe (for 13 years) to be recognized by the government. The one's with the agenda was the stupid politicians who wanted something in return constantly, but he had better integrity than that. So one of the men you say have some agenda to uphold... You're dishonoring the memory of him. Shame on you.
Besides, he was a spiritual person teaching classes about indigenous belief systems (and had the highest respect for them) as well as evolution and anthropology.
When the school management started to be a bit strange regarding evolution, he was ready to quit. Not because of his peers but because he knew what was true. And I've met several scientists and professors like that, so... no... you're wrong. Beyond wrong.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
The bible describes the creation only in very broad terms... it makes no attempt at defining the animals within each kind. So how can anyone claim it is wrong. Its like someone telling you they breed cats but dont specify which type of cat they breed... do you assume they lied because they are not breeding lions? Of course not.
What the genesis account shows is the correct order of things. It describes the appearance of living things in the same order as science does with the 'vegetation' first then sea life then insects or 'creeping/swarming' things then flying creatures, land animals and finally mankind.
The writer of genesis gives that very broard
Description of the appearance of life on the planet.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
If God chose to reveal exactly how he created life, we would have nothing to explore... we should be glad that he chose not to reveal every detail because not knowing everything is what makes life so wondrous.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
The scripture still says that God caused Earth to produce life, not that God himself produced life.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
There is overwhelming proof of evolution. There are millions of fossils to show transitions and millions of animals to compare DNA. Chromosome 2 proves that humans share a common ancestor with Great Apes who have 24 pairs of chromosomes, while we have 23 pairs. Where did our 24th pair go? Evolutionary scientists have found evidence that human chromosome 2 is the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. Chromosomes have a telomere on each end and a centromere in the middle. So if a chromosome had been fused, it would have three telomeres (one on each end and one in the middle) and two centromeres. Guess what...scientists found it. Chromosome 2 has three telomeres and two centromeres (unlike any other chromosome). Somewhere along the line, we broke off and took our own evolutionary route, although we humans still belong in the family of Great Apes.
Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) also prove Evolution. ERVs are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome!
There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The chances that a virus was inserted at the exact same location is 1 in 3,000,000,000. Humans and chimps share 16 pairs of viruses inserted at perfectly matched location. It must have been our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs. The odds that humans and chimps don't have a common ancestor, but coincidently share 16 ERV perfectly matched locations are about 1 in 10^142. ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Human genetic diversity is too great for there to have ever been a human population size that consisted of less than 10,000 individuals. Pairwise Sequentially Markovian Coalescent (PSMC) analysis confirms a population bottleneck in humans that consisted of no fewer than 10,000 individuals. Source: ( Li, Heng, and Durbin, Richard. ) "Inference of Human Population History from Individual Whole-Genome Sequences". Nature International Weekly Journal of Science. 28 July 2001. PSMC estimate on simulated data. : Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences : Nature : Nature Publishing Group
If there were the most severe population bottlenecking such as one breeding pair that is portrayed in the case of the Biblical or Quranic Adam and Eve, then there would be a maximum of 4 alleles passed on by Adam and Eve to their children. Furthermore, the subsequent inbreeding would cause some loss of alleles due to genetic drifting. There would not have been genetic diversity in the small group of Adam, Eve and their children who would've had to commit incest amongst each other for the procreation of their inbred children. A lack of genetic diversity would have persisted for thousands of generations until genetic mutations could cause the genetic diversity of today's population. Based on the number of different alleles there are for the number of genes within the current population and the known rate of mutations per nucleotide sites in humans, geneticists can calculate the minimum number of people needed to create the current amount of genetic diversity. Numerous genetic studies suggest that there were several thousands of people more than two people during the most severe population bottleneck which ever occurred in human history.
DNA segments ( Alu repeats ) insert themselves at various chromosomal locations. There are various forms of Alu sequences and several thousand families of Alu. One well-studied family of Alu is called Ya5, which has been inserted into human chromosomes at 57 mapped locations. If we were to have descended from a single pair of ancestors such as Adam and Eve, then we all would have each of the 57 elements inserted at the same location points of our chromosomes. " However, the human population consists of groups of people who share some insertion points but not others. The multiple shared categories make it clear that although a human population bottleneck occurred, it was definitely never as small as two. In fact, this line of evidence also indicates that there were at least several thousand people when the population was at its smallest". Source: ( Venema, Dennis and Falk, Darrel ) " Does Genetics Point to a Single Primal Couple?". 5 April 2010. Does Genetics Point to a Single Primal Couple? | The BioLogos Forum
Coalescence theory analysis of single nucleotide polymorphisms and linkage disequilibrium indicates the mean effective population size for hominid lineage is 100,000 individuals over the course of the last 30 million years. The effective population size estimated from linkage disequilibrium is a minimum of 10,000 followed by an expansion in the last 20,000 years." Source: ( Tenesa, Albert, Navarro, Paul, Hayes, Ben J., Duffy, David L., Clarke,Geraldine, Goodard, Mike E. and Visscher, Peter M.) " Recent Human Effective Population Size Estimated from Linkage Disequilibrium". Genome Research. 17 April 2007 Recent human effective population size estimated from linkage disequilibrium
Indeed, there is ample genetic evidence that biblical or koranic Adam never existed.
If there were the most severe population bottlenecking such as one breeding pair that is portrayed in the case of the Biblical or Quranic Adam and Eve, then there would be a maximum of 4 alleles passed on by Adam and Eve to their children. Furthermore, the subsequent inbreeding would cause some loss of alleles due to genetic drifting. There would not have been genetic diversity in the small group of Adam, Eve and their children who would've had to commit incest amongst each other for the procreation of their inbred children. A lack of genetic diversity would have persisted for thousands of generations until genetic mutations could cause the genetic diversity of today's population. Based on the number of different alleles there are for the number of genes within the current population and the known rate of mutations per nucleotide sites in humans, geneticists can calculate the minimum number of people needed to create the current amount of genetic diversity. Numerous genetic studies suggest that there were several thousands of people more than two people during the most severe population bottleneck which ever occurred in human history.
DNA segments ( Alu repeats ) insert themselves at various chromosomal locations. There are various forms of Alu sequences and several thousand families of Alu. One well-studied family of Alu is called Ya5, which has been inserted into human chromosomes at 57 mapped locations. If we were to have descended from a single pair of ancestors such as Adam and Eve, then we all would have each of the 57 elements inserted at the same location points of our chromosomes. " However, the human population consists of groups of people who share some insertion points but not others. The multiple shared categories make it clear that although a human population bottleneck occurred, it was definitely never as small as two. In fact, this line of evidence also indicates that there were at least several thousand people when the population was at its smallest". Source: ( Venema, Dennis and Falk, Darrel ) " Does Genetics Point to a Single Primal Couple?". 5 April 2010. Does Genetics Point to a Single Primal Couple? | The BioLogos Forum
Coalescence theory analysis of single nucleotide polymorphisms and linkage disequilibrium indicates the mean effective population size for hominid lineage is 100,000 individuals over the course of the last 30 million years. The effective population size estimated from linkage disequilibrium is a minimum of 10,000 followed by an expansion in the last 20,000 years." Source: ( Tenesa, Albert, Navarro, Paul, Hayes, Ben J., Duffy, David L., Clarke,Geraldine, Goodard, Mike E. and Visscher, Peter M.) " Recent Human Effective Population Size Estimated from Linkage Disequilibrium". Genome Research. 17 April 2007 Recent human effective population size estimated from linkage disequilibrium
Indeed, there is ample genetic evidence that biblical or koranic Adam never existed.
Skwim
Veteran Member
And I didn't say it did, did I.
Hey, you're the one who said "The bible does not name each different type of animal within a kind, it only details what each kind is." And I took the quoted scripture you posted as detailing what each kind is. So what's your problem? I simply applied the information you provided to the ark story.
Last edited:
Sapiens
Polymathematician
If you can't do better than that you're in serious trouble.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
We know exactly whom we are taking about, a mythological being that is not capable of doing anything what-so-ever.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
If it is not right then it is wrong. If you can not define "kind" it can not be right. Therefor it is wrong. Wrong in so many, many, many more ways too.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
This has been explained so many times in this thread. One last time: Mutation supplies the raw material that natural selection operates upon.
Laws? Are you making up laws now?
No the Lamarckian view was rejected in favor of natural selection.
Darwin himself noted: "With animals such as the giraffe, of which the whole structure is admirably co-ordinated for certain purposes, it has been supposed that all the parts must have been simultaneously modified; and it has been argued that, on the principle of natural selection, this is scarcely possible. But in thus arguing, it has been tacitly assumed that the variations must have been abrupt and great"
Must I really waste time posing links to papers that you will neither read nor underhand?
What has been offered so far is as pathetic as all the rest of the evolution theorising I have ever read. Supposition...guessing....nothing more. Offering what men "think" "might have happened" is not proof.
[/QUOTe]If that were the case I'd agree with you, but it isn't. You don't see that because you do not understand any of the many lines of evidence that come together in complete harmony.
You really need to learn how science works. If I could rip the guts out of Darwin and get Dawkins, Myer and Gould whilst I was at it, not only would I guarantee a life of ease, etc., but oddly enough, they'd all cheer me on (at least those that are alive).
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
So the "director" of a film is not responsible for the film's "direction" in ordering the scenes and having authority over what is included in the dialogue and what is not.......??? Are you in kindergarten?
LOL.....mine did. It was already genetically programmed in them to respond to the cold that way. Adaptation at work. They had naked bellies when we left a relatively warm city climate and in a couple of years of snow, they grew extra hair on their bellies for warmth.
And what program exists without a programmer? Do you have a computer without programs? If you do, it would be rather useless.....how did the program's become part of the computer? Undirected chance??
Nice dodge.
Who made up the rules in a basketball or baseball game? Can anyone even play a simple game without rules. Did the rules invent themselves? The universe has rules too....so precise that there is no variation. Who made up the rules?
Who invented the laws under which the citizens of your country live? If there were no laws, there would be anarchy.
If there were laws but no one to enforce them, then what good are the laws? So common sense tells us there has to be both law makers and law enforcers.
The law of gravity is not something we can argue with. It's what keeps our feet n the ground and prevents us from flying off into outer space....yet for any kid who has ever climbed up to a height with a superman costume on, the law of gravity cannot be bargained with. If they break this law by attempting to fly, it will let you know painfully and immediately that they cannot get away with that.
Most of the laws that man lives by are from the Bible. No stealing, lying, murdering, raping, etc are still incorporated into the laws of every civilised nation. Who made those laws universal? Who gave humans a conscience? Why do we have a moral compass when animals do not have one?
And this response is exactly what I would expect an evolutionist to say.......let me quote you again.....
"They're great according to some new theories." What about the old ones? Discarded now...old hat?
"It's probably a very common and likely result of the energy potentials that we can see in nature. When you have massive sources of energy, then this is probably what you should expect to see, life of some form or another."
You see what I see? "Probably" "likely" "probably what we would expect to see"...this is the language of scientific truth?
Thank you, you just proved my point.
Can you produce the intermediate species between the giraffe with a short neck and the one with a long one? If you can't, then why believe such an unsubstantiated explanation? Is it because you want to?
They were logical questions that I have invited any evolutionist to explain.....preferably in their own words so that us uneducated morons can understand.
More twisting than Chubby Checker.
.....God commanded that creation take place in situ. That is surely not a difficult concept? He placed the grass on the earth and it grew and produced seed according to its kind. Ever grown a lawn? Where do you plant grass? Where would you plant a tree? Now don't tell me, let me guess.......the evidence was meant to show how evolution took place by someone who already believed it? No bias of course....no influence on how to interpret that evidence only one way? How are you any different to us?
Oh, that's priceless. Strawman much?
Seriously, you are the one needing to be ashamed here. Do the good deeds of this one man cancel out all the rubbish spouted by evolutionist claiming "facts" where none exist?
Good for him....what on earth has that got to do with anything related to this topic? Talking about your own Strawman is hardly responding to the issue. Teaching native pagan religion hardly makes him a better scientist.
Why am I wrong? Evolutionists support the findings of other evolutionists...that is a fact. They quote one another and use each other's findings to continue building their house of straw......a big wind might blow it all down tomorrow.
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
So the "raw materials" just popped out of nowhere to be directed by a random chance mutation that just happened to benefit millions of organisms over millions of years?
Who supplied the "raw materials" of life Sapien? How does natural selection produce the things spoken about in post #35?
No links...just please explain in your own words how it works....just for us uneducated, scientifically challenged individuals.
How does a brainless plant know how to duplicate the female form of the insect that pollinates it, complete with the correct pheromone, so that a male of that insect is tricked into perpetuating that species of plant? How does undirected chance or natural selection explain that? Make it simple for us.
Are you reading what I am reading here? ..."it has been supposed that all parts must have been simultaneously modified" and that "on the principle of natural selection, this is scarcely possible. But in thus arguing, it has been tacitly assumed that the variations must have been abrupt and great."
This is the scientific explanation? So anything that presents itself to argue with evolution has to be explained away in order for it to still fit. Thank you also for proving my point.
The giraffes just suddenly developed long necks "abruptly"....all at once. The absence of intermediate species must of necessity, point to this conclusion......Really?
No just explain in simple terms how all these things just happened through undirected chance when nothing we know that is useful or designed is the product of undirected chance? What tool that is intended for a specific purpose is not designed and made by someone with intelligence? Even a simple mousetrap requires components to be assembled in a specific way. They would never come together by chance.
Who brings them together and makes sure that they all fit...even when they don't? Scientists are under obligation from within their own circles to uphold this teaching. Who would dare disagree and not be laughed out the scientific community?
Oh, I think we have a very good idea how science works after what you have posted here.
If the findings don't harmonize, scientists will fiddle with the interpretation to invent ways to force the evidence to fit into the only explanation that they will accept. This is why "it must have" taken place that way.
The only one you need to cheer you on, (with any lasting benefit) is the Creator. He is hardly going to do that with those who reject his existence because it is offensive to their beliefs.
You have a belief system based on faith in the interpretation of evidence. You point to their writings as proof of your belief. We too have a belief system. We have faith in the one whose writings we accept.
You have no more proof for your beliefs than we do. Why is that such a hard thing to admit?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
JayJayDee, nearly every single argument you have formulated in those last couple of posts was a strawman, a false equivocation, an argument from ignorance or just outright misunderstanding. Are you actually interested in learning the facts of our position, or are you only interested in dismissing them?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
If flying creatures came before land animals, could you please explain why the earliest known land animal pre-dates the earliest known bird by over 200 million years?
Pneumodesmus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aurornis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
well the assumption you make with the Ark story is that Noah needed to take a pair of each of the current species onto the ark with him. But a 'kind' can be respresented by just two animals even though there may be 100 different species within the kind. .
A 'Cat' wild kind
A 'Cat' domestic kind
A 'Dog' wild kind
A 'Dog' domestic kind
An 'Equine' kind
A 'bovine' kind
etc etc etc
If i had the energy or desire to try to compile of a list of each 'kind' I would. But i dont so I wont.
But skwim, I expected better from you! Seriously, did you really think that Noah needed to save the fish because a flood was coming???
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
the bible begins with 'swarming' and 'creeping' things which in bible speak refers to what we would call insects. I think if you look at the fossil record, insects come before other land animals.