Evolution Vs. Creationism

[McBell]

It seems I am doing a lot of expaining.....why don't you enlighten me on the truths of evolution? and prove me wrong

So I take it you do not know the relationship between fact and scientific theory?
Or perhaps you are just avoiding said relationship?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I have never said I support creationists, on the contrary, however...

It should be noted that JW's like to separate themselves from typical Creationists(YEC).
They are "Old Earth Creationists." They accept the possibility that the Earth could be billions of years old, and that the Creation story in Genesis is simply about preparing the already existing Earth for man. They are also use the day/age interpretation of the Creation days in Genesis.

Also, their two anti-biology tracts, Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? and Did Man Get Here by Evolution or by Creation? are both so full of quote-mining and misrepresentations of biologists and anthropologists papers as to border on libel.

 

[Amill]

as reported by a science magazine

Lol, that's some source you got there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri20shBEsls
Watch this video, it was created to tackle the inappropriate hype that Ida got as being the "missing link", but he does a very nice job explaining the links we find throughout all of the monkey ancestry. Yea, we're monkeys.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Scientists have NOT found the necessary "links" between apelike animals and man...."Science Digest" speaks of "the lack of a missing link to explain a relatively sudden appearance of modern man. "Newsweek" observed: "the missing link between man and apes....is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule"
Because there are NO links, "phantom creatures" have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they really existed. That explains why the following contradictions could occur, as reported by a science magazine: "humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contended, in sudden jumps from one form to the other....But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion"......
Thus we can better understand the observation of Solly Zuckerman (a respected anatomist) who wrote in the "Journal of the Royal Collage of Surgeons of Edinburgh": "The search for the proverbial 'missing link' in man's evlution, that holy grail of a never dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allow speculation and myth to flourish as happily to-day as they did 50 years ago and more". He noted that, all too often, facts were ignored, and instead, what was currently popular was championed in spite of evidence to the contrary...............

Wow! Quote mining and copying from Life: How did it get here? By evolution or by creation? (A JW anti-science tract).
Impressive!

 

[sniper762]

dallas, what do you think of this theory?

The Bible states in the book of genesis, believed by many theologians to have been written by Moses between 1500-1600 BC, that (GEN 2), in the beginning, the earth was VOID and WITHOUT FORM and on the first day, (GEN 3), God said, let there be light and there was light. On the second day of his six-day creation, (GEN 6), God moved upon the earth, separating the waters, dividing them from the waters below and the waters above the firmament and all in between was called heaven. On the third day, (GEN 9), he CAUSED the dry land to appear and LET the earth bring forth grass and trees and seeds that reproduced after its kind. It appears that within these three days, God merely manipulated what was already here, not creating it all from NOTHING. Gen 5, 8 and 13 says that the morning and the evening were the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd days. What defines a day? I perceive the morning and the evening to be defined by the rising and setting of the sun, but wait a minute….the sun was not set into the firmaments until the 4th day.??????? Then, on the fourth day, (GEN 1: 14-19), he set the sun, moon and stars, all called lights, in the firmament called heaven, (which was between the waters below and the waters above). We know, now that the moon is not a light, but yet a reflection of light from the sun. Furthermore, there is no water ABOVE these celestial bodies which Moses says were placed in the firmament between the divided waters. It is evident that Moses had no knowledge of the size or distance from the earth of these bodies and made an attempt to explain their existence to man in a way that would maintain his claim that God was their creator and thus greater than them and before them. On the fifth day, (GEN 20), he made the fish of the seas and the fowls of the air. On the sixth day, (GEN 24), he made all the land dwelling animals, man and woman. All of these animals, fish, birds and humans were made with the ability to multiply.


Now let’s back up a bit. The generation of man can be accurately traced back to Adam, by historical data and Biblical record to approximately 6000 years ago. All scientists and theologians alike agree to this. Many theologians agree that each of the six days of God’s creation, as stated in the Bible, (2 Peter 3:8) that a day with God is a thousand years with man, therefore adding 6000 years to the 6000 years since the creation of Adam culminating in approximately 12000 years total since God’s beginning of the Earth’s creation. This time frame difference is where science and theology disagree.
Now, the Bible states that God destroyed all living things on the face of the earth around 2344 BC save it Noah, his three sons, their wives and the animals taken aboard the ark, saving them to replenish the earth. Who is to say that God had not done the same thing to the earth before? God would have no reason to inspire his prophet to explain any creation, formation, or destruction of this earth or its inhabitants other than that of which concerns us, the relatives of Adam, and God’s latest RESTORATION of the earth that was reformed as our home. Furthermore, for those who believe in science’s theory of evolution, maybe the earth, dinosaurs and prehistoric man DID evolve over billions of years prior to God’s insertion of Adam and his restoration of the earth from its VOID state 12000 years ago into the earth as we know it today as our home. If, God didn’t create prehistoric man (in his likeness) it would explain why prehistoric man remained ignorant and primitive for millions of years and since God’s new earth and insertion of man, (Adam), his creation, in his likeness and with his knowledge, have technologically advanced so quickly in the past 6000 years to what we are today. Just imagine our advance, at that same rate in the next 6000 years. After all, God’s word teaches us to be Christians, or Christ-like. Christ being God in the flesh means that we are to strive to be God-like, therefore, someday becoming a creator of a world and mankind just as did our creator.

 

[McBell]

dallas, what do you think of this theory?

The Bible states in the book of genesis, believed by many theologians to have been written by Moses between 1500-1600 BC, that (GEN 2), in the beginning, the earth was VOID and WITHOUT FORM and on the first day, (GEN 3), God said, let there be light and there was light. On the second day of his six-day creation, (GEN 6), God moved upon the earth, separating the waters, dividing them from the waters below and the waters above the firmament and all in between was called heaven. On the third day, (GEN 9), he CAUSED the dry land to appear and LET the earth bring forth grass and trees and seeds that reproduced after its kind. It appears that within these three days, God merely manipulated what was already here, not creating it all from NOTHING. Gen 5, 8 and 13 says that the morning and the evening were the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd days. What defines a day? I perceive the morning and the evening to be defined by the rising and setting of the sun, but wait a minute….the sun was not set into the firmaments until the 4th day.??????? Then, on the fourth day, (GEN 1: 14-19), he set the sun, moon and stars, all called lights, in the firmament called heaven, (which was between the waters below and the waters above). We know, now that the moon is not a light, but yet a reflection of light from the sun. Furthermore, there is no water ABOVE these celestial bodies which Moses says were placed in the firmament between the divided waters. It is evident that Moses had no knowledge of the size or distance from the earth of these bodies and made an attempt to explain their existence to man in a way that would maintain his claim that God was their creator and thus greater than them and before them. On the fifth day, (GEN 20), he made the fish of the seas and the fowls of the air. On the sixth day, (GEN 24), he made all the land dwelling animals, man and woman. All of these animals, fish, birds and humans were made with the ability to multiply.[/FONT]


Now let’s back up a bit. The generation of man can be accurately traced back to Adam, by historical data and Biblical record to approximately 6000 years ago. All scientists and theologians alike agree to this. Many theologians agree that each of the six days of God’s creation, as stated in the Bible, (2 Peter 3:8) that a day with God is a thousand years with man, therefore adding 6000 years to the 6000 years since the creation of Adam culminating in approximately 12000 years total since God’s beginning of the Earth’s creation. This time frame difference is where science and theology disagree.
Now, the Bible states that God destroyed all living things on the face of the earth around 2344 BC save it Noah, his three sons, their wives and the animals taken aboard the ark, saving them to replenish the earth. Who is to say that God had not done the same thing to the earth before? God would have no reason to inspire his prophet to explain any creation, formation, or destruction of this earth or its inhabitants other than that of which concerns us, the relatives of Adam, and God’s latest RESTORATION of the earth that was reformed as our home. Furthermore, for those who believe in science’s theory of evolution, maybe the earth, dinosaurs and prehistoric man DID evolve over billions of years prior to God’s insertion of Adam and his restoration of the earth from its VOID state 12000 years ago into the earth as we know it today as our home. If, God didn’t create prehistoric man (in his likeness) it would explain why prehistoric man remained ignorant and primitive for millions of years and since God’s new earth and insertion of man, (Adam), his creation, in his likeness and with his knowledge, have technologically advanced so quickly in the past 6000 years to what we are today. Just imagine our advance, at that same rate in the next 6000 years. After all, God’s word teaches us to be Christians, or Christ-like. Christ being God in the flesh means that we are to strive to be God-like, therefore, someday becoming a creator of a world and mankind just as did our creator.

I was going to ask you a few questions, but since you fell flat on your face in the other forum where you posted this exact same block of text and then failed miserably to support any of it....

 

[sniper762]

thats why it was not addressed to you.

 

[McBell]

thats why it was not addressed to you.

Huh?
It was not addressed to me because you cannot support any of it?

 

[sniper762]

actually its because i dont like your attitude, thats why i refuse to debate with you.

 

[dallas1125]

dallas, what do you think of this theory?

The Bible states in the book of genesis, believed by many theologians to have been written by Moses between 1500-1600 BC, that (GEN 2), in the beginning, the earth was VOID and WITHOUT FORM and on the first day, (GEN 3), God said, let there be light and there was light. On the second day of his six-day creation, (GEN 6), God moved upon the earth, separating the waters, dividing them from the waters below and the waters above the firmament and all in between was called heaven. On the third day, (GEN 9), he CAUSED the dry land to appear and LET the earth bring forth grass and trees and seeds that reproduced after its kind. It appears that within these three days, God merely manipulated what was already here, not creating it all from NOTHING. Gen 5, 8 and 13 says that the morning and the evening were the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd days. What defines a day? I perceive the morning and the evening to be defined by the rising and setting of the sun, but wait a minute….the sun was not set into the firmaments until the 4th day.??????? Then, on the fourth day, (GEN 1: 14-19), he set the sun, moon and stars, all called lights, in the firmament called heaven, (which was between the waters below and the waters above). We know, now that the moon is not a light, but yet a reflection of light from the sun. Furthermore, there is no water ABOVE these celestial bodies which Moses says were placed in the firmament between the divided waters. It is evident that Moses had no knowledge of the size or distance from the earth of these bodies and made an attempt to explain their existence to man in a way that would maintain his claim that God was their creator and thus greater than them and before them. On the fifth day, (GEN 20), he made the fish of the seas and the fowls of the air. On the sixth day, (GEN 24), he made all the land dwelling animals, man and woman. All of these animals, fish, birds and humans were made with the ability to multiply.


Now let’s back up a bit. The generation of man can be accurately traced back to Adam, by historical data and Biblical record to approximately 6000 years ago. All scientists and theologians alike agree to this. Many theologians agree that each of the six days of God’s creation, as stated in the Bible, (2 Peter 3:8) that a day with God is a thousand years with man, therefore adding 6000 years to the 6000 years since the creation of Adam culminating in approximately 12000 years total since God’s beginning of the Earth’s creation. This time frame difference is where science and theology disagree.
Now, the Bible states that God destroyed all living things on the face of the earth around 2344 BC save it Noah, his three sons, their wives and the animals taken aboard the ark, saving them to replenish the earth. Who is to say that God had not done the same thing to the earth before? God would have no reason to inspire his prophet to explain any creation, formation, or destruction of this earth or its inhabitants other than that of which concerns us, the relatives of Adam, and God’s latest RESTORATION of the earth that was reformed as our home. Furthermore, for those who believe in science’s theory of evolution, maybe the earth, dinosaurs and prehistoric man DID evolve over billions of years prior to God’s insertion of Adam and his restoration of the earth from its VOID state 12000 years ago into the earth as we know it today as our home. If, God didn’t create prehistoric man (in his likeness) it would explain why prehistoric man remained ignorant and primitive for millions of years and since God’s new earth and insertion of man, (Adam), his creation, in his likeness and with his knowledge, have technologically advanced so quickly in the past 6000 years to what we are today. Just imagine our advance, at that same rate in the next 6000 years. After all, God’s word teaches us to be Christians, or Christ-like. Christ being God in the flesh means that we are to strive to be God-like, therefore, someday becoming a creator of a world and mankind just as did our creator.

Im sorry but in this thread the bible is not valid as a source.

 

[Autodidact]

I agree and I would much rather see a video on spontaneously reproducing bunny rabbits and their ability to fill a room in a span of 5 years and eventually producing one with big floppy ears or how a tree is capable of producing fruit than debating nylon eating bacteria, disease, and agitated germs.

The reason we use bacteria is that they reproduce so rapidly that we can observe evolution in real time. In e.g. bunny rabbits, it would take longer than your lifetime to observe evolution in action. (although we do see a form of evolution with artificial selection, that is, when we breed for a specific result.) Another organism where biologists have induced evolution of new species is fruit flies, again because they reproduce relatively rapidly, though nothing like bacteria.

Are you familiar with the London Underground Mosquito? That's pretty cool.

 

[Autodidact]

So you would agree that Nylon eating bacteria has nothing to do with evolution?

No, it is an example of evolution in action. What about that do you not understand, or why do you disagree?

 

[sniper762]

sorry, i thought the "creation" part was biblically related

 

[Autodidact]

Okey doky, then how does evolution explain the existance of this organism that reproduces....how did it come to existance?

Are you asking about abiogenesis? If so, why?

 

[LuisDantas]

sorry, i thought the "creation" part was biblically related

Of course it is. But scripture does not serve as evidence, unless I suppose if one is speaking to literalists only.

 

[Autodidact]

And I totally see your point and I can understand why you believe in it. But, no offence, down to our day I have never read or heard any sound proof of an organism evolving into something else. Fishes are still fishes, apes are still apes, humans are still humans. Yes, there are instances of the body adapting to weather and temperature but it is not considered evolution.

So are you asserting that no new species ever evolve? That every species presently alive on earth has existed in its current form since life was present on earth?

btw, science is not about proof; it's about evidence.

 

[sniper762]

dallas, then what source is valid for "creation"?

 

[Autodidact]

I am actually very aware of the so called evidence as I read a lot, wich in effect is to this date only a theory (wich is why it's called Theory of Evolution - ToE). The fact that our skeleton is similar to that of an ape or that our muscle structure is very similar is not evidence that we have evolved from them....there is still the "missing link" that proves it all, and it has not been found, even scientists today say it. More over Evolution should be continuous, to this date nothing is evolving. But it has only being used to somehow trying to explain our existance. So for the moment we have to accept the fact that it is a theory under consideration. On the other hand there are accounts in the scriptures that prove the existance of a creator who intended us to be on the earth.

Your post makes it apparent that in fact you are not well informed, or you would not say something like "only a theory," which betrays a severe lack of understanding about science. Would you like to investigate your error yourself, or would you prefer I explain it to you?

Actually, the precise pattern of similarities not only of skeletons but organs and genes between species does strongly support ToE, which explains not only that they will exist, but in what specific patterns.

Evolution is continuous; it goes on constantly, always has and always will.

*raises her tired old hands to explain to yet another ignorant creationist what science is, and is not. No, I can't go on. Will someone please take up the torch and explain to our new friend that evolution is NOT the theory that there is no creator, and is comfortable with the assumption that there is? Thank you.*

 

[Autodidact]

I know both Creationists and Evolutionist....I agree with neither of them. I am here to see you all climbing on mirrors...you included

Every post reveals your ignorance and confusion. There is no such thing as an evolutionist. There are only scientists, and people who accept science.

 

[Autodidact]

Scientists have NOT found the necessary "links" between apelike animals and man....

Sorry, this is false. We have many fossils of many hominids, and my guess is that you are simply not familiar with them.

"Science Digest" speaks of "the lack of a missing link to explain a relatively sudden appearance of modern man. "Newsweek" observed: "the missing link between man and apes....is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule"
Because there are NO links, "phantom creatures" have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they really existed. That explains why the following contradictions could occur, as reported by a science magazine: "humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contended, in sudden jumps from one form to the other....But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion"......
Thus we can better understand the observation of Solly Zuckerman (a respected anatomist) who wrote in the "Journal of the Royal Collage of Surgeons of Edinburgh": "The search for the proverbial 'missing link' in man's evlution, that holy grail of a never dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allow speculation and myth to flourish as happily to-day as they did 50 years ago and more". He noted that, all too often, facts were ignored, and instead, what was currently popular was championed in spite of evidence to the contrary...............

You are a champion: at plagiarizing and quote-mining. Both of those practices are dishonest.

Evolution is not founded on an anatomy textbook published over 50 years ago, or someone's distorted remark at a conference in the 80's. Newsweek ! = science.