Any JW want to take a stab at this one?

[McBell]

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.

Ah, so now the fossil record is ok...

Sad really.

 

[jonathan180iq]

How do random chance mutations qualify as being directed?

They aren't directed by a "director". They are directed by natural processes, in the same way that water flowing down a riverbed is directed by the ever-changing outline of that riverbed.

Can a creature will itself to change over time?

No.

Did my dogs will themselves to grow extra fur on their bellies when we moved to the mountains?

No.

Or was there an existing "program" in their genetics that just automatically caused that to happen?

Yes. A program that preceded them in life by their ancestors and which they were lucky enough to carry. It's the same reason why men's beards grow faster in the winter and/or when they spend more time outdoors.

Can a change occur to the extent of one being transforming itself over time into another creature entirely?

Yes. (although it's not an individual which changes - it's populations after generations and generations of adaptation, each passing on their gene frequencies.)

Or are there genetic limits imposed as Genesis states?

No.

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.

Not always beneficial at all. That's why there are millions upon millions of extinct species. Their changes were not beneficial or their populations didn't change fast enough to keep up with environmental conditions. There are more dead things than there will ever be living things.

What are the odds for that ever happenings?

You're alive aren't you? Those odds are pretty damn good.

If a giraffe's neck was such a benefit...why didn't they all evolve them?

Because not all creatures needed that particular adaptation. Giraffes have long necks because they were the one species to develop that adaptation... obviously.
There have been other organisms which developed a similar adaption, but they're all gone...

Where are the intermediate creatures with necks half the size leading to what we see today?

Meet the Okapi

It's the only non-extinct relative of the Giraffe.

Okapi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And where are the intermediate species?


Meet the Sivathere:

Down on Earth and up in the Sky in the Karoo | ELF Astronomy


Meet the Samotherium

Samotherium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's a lot that you don't know...

As to the questions in post# 35 How would you explain those things?

Natural Selection

 

[rusra02]

If you can't do better than that you're in serious trouble.

That the Church of England and the Catholic Church reject the Bible and pander to the theories popular at the moment, is not at all surprising, and doesn't change the truth that the Bible and Jesus Christ teach.

 

[Pegg]

They aren't directed by a "director". They are directed by natural processes, in the same way that water flowing down a riverbed is directed by the ever-changing outline of that riverbed.



No.



No.



Yes. A program that preceded them in life by their ancestors and which they were lucky enough to carry. It's the same reason why men's beards grow faster in the winter and/or when they spend more time outdoors.



Yes. (although it's not an individual which changes - it's populations after generations and generations of adaptation, each passing on their gene frequencies.)



No.



Not always beneficial at all. That's why there are millions upon millions of extinct species. Their changes were not beneficial or their populations didn't change fast enough to keep up with environmental conditions. There are more dead things than there will ever be living things.



You're alive aren't you? Those odds are pretty damn good.



Because not all creatures needed that particular adaptation. Giraffes have long necks because they were the one species to develop that adaptation... obviously.
There have been other organisms which developed a similar adaption, but they're all gone...

Meet the Okapi

It's the only non-extinct relative of the Giraffe.

Okapi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And where are the intermediate species?


Meet the Sivathere:

Down on Earth and up in the Sky in the Karoo | ELF Astronomy


Meet the Samotherium

Samotherium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's a lot that you don't know...

Natural Selection

This is variation within a kind. Just as humans are one kind with many varieties, so all the animal kinds have the ability to diverge into different varieties. That is the only observable and testable form of evolution. When you start saying that the giraffe changes into a different 'kind', then that is going beyond real testable science.

 

[leibowde84]

If this is good enough for God...sorry it isn't good enough for you. The Bible does not pretend to be a science textbook, but when it touches on matters of science, it is very accurate.

So, then why do human beings have tail bones? Did humans used to have tails?

 

[leibowde84]

This is variation within a kind. Just as humans are one kind with many varieties, so all the animal kinds have the ability to diverge into different varieties. That is the only observable and testable form of evolution. When you start saying that the giraffe changes into a different 'kind', then that is going beyond real testable science.

Who says that the giraffe "changes" into another kind? That is not a claim made by evolution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

I didn't ask about insects, I asked about flying creatures. According to you, the Bible specifically states that "flying creatures" (which it identifies separately from "creeping/swarming" things) came into existence before land animals. And yet the earliest land animal pre-dates the earliest known bird by over two-hundred million years. Can you explain that, please?

 

[Ouroboros]

I give up. You're incurable.

 

[Ouroboros]

w
But skwim, I expected better from you! Seriously, did you really think that Noah needed to save the fish because a flood was coming???

Not all fish can handle a flood or cloudy, turbulent, muddy water. Some fish and sea life is very delicate and can't have that kind of disaster.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ah, so now the fossil record is ok...

Sad really.

It's like carbon dating. When it agrees with the Bible, then it must be correct. When it doesn't, then the Bible is still correct. *bleh*

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Sure you can. And plenty of people do. They agree that their god's design is amazing and that "he" is certainly more than intelligent and powerful enough to have come up with evolution.

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.

My Christian friends would disagree with you.
So how do we figure out who is right?

I don't know what "the opposition appears to be winning" means. Sorry.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Is that not what you're doing when you claim that god couldn't have designed evolution?

 

[jonathan180iq]

This is variation within a kind. Just as humans are one kind with many varieties, so all the animal kinds have the ability to diverge into different varieties. That is the only observable and testable form of evolution. When you start saying that the giraffe changes into a different 'kind', then that is going beyond real testable science.

You're going to eventually run into the same barrier to your argument that JJD and others have before, yet refuse to answer...

If there exists this barrier to adapatation within a "kind" which keeps it from turning into another "kind", what is it?
Explain to us what biologically limiting factors there are which keeps adaptation from continuing indefinitely.

Science has yet to detect any such barrier.
There are certainly barriers to reporduction, for example, which keep two now-dissimilar species from mating and producing offspring. But, admitting that adaptation and speciation occur, what biological mechanisms stops it from continuing?

The answer is that there isn't one.
There is no such biological barrier to change, which is what evolutionary science asserts in making the claim that all species are interconnected and derived from previously similar species.

The number 25 wasn't spontaneously created independent of all previous integers anymore than man was created spontaneously independent of all the organisms before it. Both the number 25, and all of humanity, are a conglomeration of all of the information that precedes them. In the future, we will be viewed as a precursor to whatever is to come after us, just like 50 is dependent on 25, and every other number before it.

 

[Skwim]

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.

Not here I don't. If I assumed he took two of each species this would amount to mega-millions of animals. But I didn't, and you know I didn't. I took you at your word that he took either 2 or 7 pairs of kinds as you represented them in your post.

But a 'kind' can be respresented by just two animals even though there may be 100 different species within the kind.

Yup, and as you presented the concept of "kind" this amounted to:

7 pair (14 animals) of the clean (domestic?) kind.
2 pair (4 animals) of the creeping kind.
2 pair (4 animals) of the wild kind.
2 pair (4 animals) of the water kind.
7 pair (14 animals) of the flying kind.
​

and not

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​

Thing is, I don't see any rational for your notion of "kind" here. All you've done is arbitrarily use "kind" as you liked. At least in your first post you were relying on a single source that was quite specific: flying kind, creeping kind, etc. Now you want to abandon this so as to account for the plethora of species that evolved from the forty. I don't blame you for trying to avoid the dilemma, but this isn't going to do it.

But skwim, I expected better from you! Seriously, did you really think that Noah needed to save the fish because a flood was coming???

With the exception of a few euryhaline fish, such as the salmon and sardine, freshwater fish cannot live in salt water and vice versa.

"Some fish species can live in both freshwater and saltwater. These species are called euryhaline fish. However, most fish species can only survive in one or the other based on their salinity tolerance, or how much salt their bodies can handle."
source​

So, Noah would have to have taken 2 pair (4 animals) of the water kind on board. And just what do you think these four animals were; goldfish, whales, sponges, or something else?

 

[Sapiens]

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?

It's getting near the time to put JJ on ignore, enough time has been wasted trying to educate him.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's getting near the time to put JJ on ignore, enough time has been wasted trying to educate him.

Did it this morning. Personally, I can't deal seeing that kind of regurgitated bs.

 

[Skwim]

It's getting near the time to put JJ on ignore, enough time has been wasted trying to educate him.

I was about to do the same, but found his/her posts kind of amusing, so I simply dismiss them and now watch from the sidelines. Hence my

in post 27

 

[Sapiens]

The question for me is when do you reach a point that denial of the obvious and dismissal of the logical shades into willful ignorance and lies?

 

[Sapiens]

That the Church of England and the Catholic Church reject the Bible and pander to the theories popular at the moment, is not at all surprising, and doesn't change the truth that the Bible and Jesus Christ teach.

That you claim this to be so doesn't change the truth that you're likely as full of beans (or likely more full of beans) as they are.

 

[Skwim]

The question for me is when do you reach a point that denial of the obvious and dismissal of the logical shades into willful ignorance and lies?

From discussions with JWs it appears to be a common tactic, and most likely taught in their assembly programs and field training; perhaps not overtly, but certainly by implication and example. It's hardly an admirable character of the JW religion, and certainly a loathsome stratagem, but when one considers the product they're attempting to sell it's not unreasonable. Unreasonable ideas demand unreasonable sales tactics. The most reprehensible thing about their conversion program is the arrogance with which they go about it: "So what if we use disreputable tactics, it's the end result that counts." FWIW, this little bit of "business" strategy was relayed to me by an ex-JW.