Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[JayJayDee]

Nope no poof in evolution or in abiogenesis...But we can explain the random appearance of different species.

Yes, they are "explained" within the framework of what is already believed to have taken place. There is no "proof", nor are there "facts" that substantiate their evidence except for what the "believe" "might have" happened.

What are you claiming would require a "poof" moment? The taken as a given were aspects of "adaptation" that I assume you agree to because you have said as much, fossils because I assume you are not denying those exist, and time because you have said as much. But more importantly what I took as a given were facts. If you take exception to any one please specify.

I take exception to stretching adaptation to limits that have no evidence to substantiate them apart from some learned person saying "I think it happened like this". You all have the same pre-conceived notions, so everything that looks like evidence is interpreted to fit your foregone conclusions.

I did not take "macro evolution" as a given. My question is what alternative can you reasonably draw. Explain these givens with ID.

Taking what the Bible says at face value, the Creator brought the universe into existence at one time; a simple statement covers this act..."in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"....this included the stars and planets. He then prepared the earth over a very long period of time for habitation. The order of creation is stated and is not at odds with what is demonstrated by science. How could the writer of Genesis know this?

Man is last on the list of creatures be brought into existence. Man alone was made different to the rest of God's creatures...not just physically, but having been endowed with something that animals lack...spirituality. Man alone was to reflect the qualities of his Maker. He alone was to enjoy endless life. It is our experience that we have a collective expectation that life should continue...we have no 'program' for death. Animals do, for the most part.

Ask any old person and they will tell you that age is a state of body, not a state of mind. Ageing takes place physically, not necessarily mentally.

When did "creation" stop?

The Bible says that creation of new creatures stopped at the end of the sixth creative period. The seventh "day" began as a rest period from God's creative works, but it didn't mean that creation came to a standstill. Adaptation continues as environments change, and new food sources are sought......but we see no way that the extraordinary systems that exist both within the natural world and in the bodies of the creatures that inhabit it, could possibly be the result of blind chance. Nothing that exhibits design in the world of mankind, lacks a designer and maker. We don't believe that nature can exist without a designer either.

How is there no poof, with ID.

I cannot produce God and introduce him to you. I can show you his written communication with us, but he is not a being in whose presence we could survive. His existence is not explained except to say that he is not a tangible being and that he is incredibly powerful. In order to bring about the universe the Creator must be unlimited in his capacity to do absolutely everything.

What does creation look like if you are so confident that it does not look like evolution?

It is controlled and interconnected in its design. All systems work harmoniously in conjunction with one another.
Recycling takes place by design...nothing in nature is wasted. Everything has its place and everything knows what it is supposed to do, without intervention from the Creator.
Reproduction takes place by design within the "kinds" specified by the Designer.

Natural systems are all interdependent by design.
Precipitation for example, is no accident. Most of the world's water is not drinkable, yet it is a miraculous substance without which no life would be possible. What is water? How does evaporation evolve to produce the one substance no creature can live without? We take it for granted but it behaves in ways that no other liquid does. It's peculiarities ensure that life will continue to exist.

The Bible says we have no advantage over animals when it comes to death at present, yet this will change in the future.

It is all explained in the Bible. Would you like a BIble study? LOL

 

[Curious George]

Yes, they are "explained" within the framework of what is already believed to have taken place. There is no "proof", nor are there "facts" that substantiate their evidence except for what the "believe" "might have" happened.



I take exception to stretching adaptation to limits that have no evidence to substantiate them apart from some learned person saying "I think it happened like this". You all have the same pre-conceived notions, so everything that looks like evidence is interpreted to fit your foregone conclusions.

by design.
Precipitation for example, is no accident. Most of the world's water is not drinkable, yet it is a miraculous substance without which no life would be possible. What is water? How does evaporation evolve to produce the one substanc no creature can live without? We take it for granted but it behaves in ways that no other liquid does. It's peculiarities ensure that life will continue to exist.

Haven't even read the rest of your post, yet. I will get there but hold on...you are saying you take exception to the conclusion. I am not asking that. If you take exception to any thing in my list of givens in the earlier post....let's hear it. Otherwise do not go off on a tangent and focus on the actual questions being asked or statements being asserted.

 

[Curious George]

Taking what the Bible says at face value, the Creator brought the universe into existence at one time; a simple statement covers this act..."in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"....this included the stars and planets. He then prepared the earth over a very long period of time for habitation. The order of creation is stated and is not at odds with what is demonstrated by science. How could the writer of Genesis know this?

Man is last on the list of creatures be brought into existence. Man alone was made different to the rest of God's creatures...not just physically, but having been endowed with something that animals lack...spirituality. Man alone was to reflect the qualities of his Maker. He alone was to enjoy endless life. It is our experience that we have a collective expectation that life should continue...we have no 'program' for death. Animals do, for the most part.

Ask any old person and they will tell you that age is a state of body, not a state of mind. Ageing takes place physically, not necessarily mentally.

While this mini sermon is poetic you do not explain the anything from the givens nor do you use the bible to explain the givens. All you did was try to use the theory of evolution to substantiate the bible. That is not what we are discussing. The question is how do we explain the earlier "givens" without evolution.

 

[Curious George]

,

I cannot produce God and introduce him to you. I can show you his written communication with is, but he is not a being in whose presence we could survive. His existence is not explained except to say that he is not a tangible being and that he is incredibly powerful. In order to bring about the universe the Creator must be unlimited in his capacity to do absolutely everything.

Incidentally I have read the bible and unless you are straying from the text there is very much a poof with the bible story.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Please note that you have yet to respond to what I considered a very cordial challenge to your position. You have easily and quickly entered into another bout of rhetorical retorts with other people, repeating the same fallacious claims about evolutionary biology, while failing to address some very valid points in my last response to you.

Here:
Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . . | Page 32 | ReligiousForums.com

And here:
Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . . | Page 32 | ReligiousForums.com

You took the time to call me out and tag me in a post (whilst offering no rebuttal) and then vanished from the conversation. Why?

Read the words.....the earth was formless and waste and no light penetrated to the earth's surface from any existing light source. When God said "let there be light" he was merely indicating that light now penetrated the darkness, perhaps by removing a thick cloud layer, and was now visible on earth's surface.

If the Earth was formless and void, which process created the clouds and the atmosphere? Did God only jump into the equation after the natural gravitational confluence of mass formed a large ball in the habitable zone around an already burning Sun? Did he wait a few million years for the volcanic and processes to slow and chill a little bit before getting involved with his specific "creation" events? Also, why is the formation story written from the perspective of being under the clouds, and not transcendent to them, as a deity would be?

The sun was there along with all the other "stars" as part of the heavens, so was the moon. They were just not clearly visible.
We have mornings without sun when it is raining. We can't see the sun, but we see the light.

Again, why is the account of creation by a god written from the perspective of someone on the ground? Wouldn't god, in his infinite wisdom, been able to pass along some perspective for this process?

But this is what evolution teaches.....that life sprang out of nowhere and magically became all the forms of life we see on this planet through blind undirected chance. There is not one shred of solid evidence that this is what happened. It is assumed by those who wish to promote their theory.

For the 37th time, that is not what evolution teaches. Evolutionary biology teaches speciation driven by natural selection. You yourself stop at micro-evolution, unwittingly assuming that evolving organisms have some arbitrary boundary to adaptation, as if it has this invisible line which keeps them from adapting past a certain point. There is no such line or boundary. Micro-evolution is evolution. Macro-evolution is that same evolutionary process expanded over longer periods of time.

Micro-economics is the study of economics on a smaller scale. Macro-economics is a larger scaled study of the exact same processes, principles, and theories. Would you not agree?

We do not yet understand abiogenesis. You have been told this many times. We do understand what building blocks are required in order for carbon-based lifeforms to exist and ultimately evolve.

Can you explain to us, please, what are the building blocks required of magic invisible wizards?

By the time living things appeared, grass and other vegetation was already provided in abundance. The Creator knows how to plant and grow the things he created.

Grass and other vegetation are living things...

You also understand that grass and vegetation would have been existent on this planet for millions of years before the atmosphere could have contained enough oxygen to sustain larger organisms, right? That means millions and millions of seasonal cycles and hundreds of thousands of tons vegetative waste would have had to accumulate before there would be enough resources to sustain even the smallest form of animal life. Oceanic creatures would have had slightly fewer requirements, but by admitting that you're getting back to the ole "fish crawled out of the water" dilemma...

I understand enough to know that the science books and journals are all the same. They all use the same terminology which betrays the fact that they have no evidence apart from what they deduce from that evidence. There are no "facts"...but lots of supposition. Please produce some evidence to the contrary. Show proof that one creature evolved into another completely different creature. It is assumed..."believed" that this took place.

That first sentence alone pretty much disqualifies the rest of your statement, but let's just ignore that for a minute.

Have you ever read an actual scientific journal? You realize how incredibly packed with data they can be, right? And how monotonous and boring they can be because of that, but also how amazing they are for the same reason? Have you ever conducted a simple study of your own? Have you ever participated in any field work of any kind involving scientific studies? Have you ever participated in a higher education biology class?

You're so incredibly ignorant of the thing that you are railing against that I'm beginning to pity you for just how oblivious you are.

Fact - This is a wolf...

Fact - These are ears of corn ( Teosinte & Tripsacum respectively)

Fact - This is a horse (Hyracotherium)

Fact - This is an elephant (Moeritherium)

Fact - This is a dinosaur (Dromaius novaehollandiae; Emu)

You yourself are spreading misinformation about creation. All I have ever asked is that evolutionists admit that their theory is just that...an unprovable theory. They promote and teach evolution as "fact" to children, when it is actually dishonest to do that.
Teaching both creation and evolution in schools will allow kids to make up their own minds without making those with spiritual values out to be morons. We are not unintelligent nor are we uneducated.....we are believers, with as much right to hold our views as you do.

Why should we make a false admission just because you guys don't like what we say? We aren't asking you to admit that your god is just a literary creation and an amalgamation of several pre-existing semitic deities, portraying the continuation of otherwise long-dead Mesopotamian mythologies, are we? We just want you embrace scientific observation, free of presuppositional arguments, and jettison ignorance and naivete.

What evidence? I have seen no credible evidence to date. Do you have some? Anything that does not rely on the interpretation of evolutionary scientists as "proof" of their very biased beliefs? Anything that does not rely on illustrations or computer graphics to demonstrate all that evolutionary change? Please show us. Show us where they state categorically that something happened, without the need to qualify their statements with "might have" or "could have" or "this leads us to conclude"...? They have "beliefs" about their evidence, that they call "facts".....but that is all they have.

If data leads to you a certain conclusion, would you prefer that they say something other than that?
If in the course of reasoning or sentence construction, you are explaining that something could have lead to something else, how would choose to state that?

Let me just give you one example showing why you're making ridiculous arguments. Imagine I'm studying a new species of plant discovered in a lower climate zone than expected. We have observed the higher climate species' pollen on the receptors of the lower climate species and can trace the new species as a hybrid of the two. I would simply say something in my conclusion like "The annual directional wind patterns in that area have lead me to conclude that the native spores of the inhabiting flora could have shifted downwind towards the lower geographical regions, causing cross pollination that would be otherwise inexplicable." According to you, my wording there should be taken as me trying validate my bias using this "odd" word usage... Studying the fact that a higher region plant has cross pollinated with a lower region plant, and after studying annual wind patterns in an area, wouldn't it be fair to say that my hypothetical statement, which could have been written in a scientific journal, would still be accurate and have nothing at all to do with trying to support "proof" in my very biased beliefs?

It appears that many contributors to this thread are as unresponsive to reason and logic for "scientific" reasons, as they accuse us of being for religious reasons....never the twain shall meet.

You mean unresponsive in the way that challenging questions to you are simply avoided in lieu of clever ad hominem one-liners?

Just as any casual reader of this thread can observe, it appears that you are avoiding to respond to legitimate challenges to your position by continually reverting back to your own previously debunked claims while still using the same bogus misrepresentation of what evolutionary biology teaches.

All I can assume now is that you prefer lying in order to maintain your position.

 

[gnostic]

Sure. But you don't have the right to your own facts, and you don't have the right to declare your beliefs as equal to the most widely accepted and credible theory in any scientific field. While you may be an intelligent person, you are clearly woefully ignorant of science. You do not understand the theory of evolution, general biology, the notion of academic honesty, or even basic scientific terminology.

He is also terribly ignorant in other fields, unrelated to evolutionary biology, including geology and physical cosmology - namely the Big Bang theory.

Did you read his reply to me? In post 654?

Talk about misinformation on the Big Bang! The way he twist the Big Bang so that it fit in with the Genesis creation is staggeringly ignorant, and about as bad when Muslims tried to their own Qur'anic verse to fit in with the BB.

His reply and as his lack honesty and scruple don't really inspire me at all. He think he know everything about science and don't think he or his religion is wrong, in the matter of science.

You and I (as well as many others) have tried to explain to him what evolution is, or what science is, but it seem to be pointless exercise, since we are debating a guy who don't want to learn, who refuses to learn, because of his "faith".

 

[philbo]

Fact - This is a dinosaur (Dromaius novaehollandiae; Emu)

..which died choking on a little dinosaur, from the look of it

 

[Salvador]

He is also terribly ignorant in other fields, unrelated to evolutionary biology, including geology and physical cosmology - namely the Big Bang theory.

Did you read his reply to me? In post 654?

Talk about misinformation on the Big Bang! The way he twist the Big Bang so that it fit in with the Genesis creation is staggeringly ignorant, and about as bad when Muslims tried to their own Qur'anic verse to fit in with the BB.

His reply and as his lack honesty and scruple don't really inspire me at all. He think he know everything about science and don't think he or his religion is wrong, in the matter of science.

You and I (as well as many others) have tried to explain to him what evolution is, or what science is, but it seem to be pointless exercise, since we are debating a guy who don't want to learn, who refuses to learn, because of his "faith".

Are you talking about Jay Jay Dee? Jay Jay Dee is a female Jehovah's Witness from Australia, according the her profile.

 

[gnostic]

Are you talking about Jay Jay Dee? Jay Jay Dee is a female Jehovah's Witness from Australia, according the her profile.

Sorry.

Since they have change the interface of RF, we don't know who is what gender.unless we look at the profile. They (RF's old interface) used to display gender along with name/alias, avatar, religious status and location along with every posts/replies.

I am from Australia too. Culturally, I am both Australian and Chinese.

What I really miss from the old RF was their old smilies, like the very useful - facepalm.

 

[Skwim]

. . . . . . . But this is what evolution teaches.....that life sprang out of nowhere and magically became all the forms of life we see on this planet through blind undirected chance. There is not one shred of solid evidence that this is what happened. It is assumed by those who wish to promote their theory. . . . . . .

Hey people, wake up! ​

JJD is again suckering you into a mindless debate---and is no doubt chuckling about it.

But hey, if this is what melts your butter . . . . . .

.​

 

[David M]

Mutations are almost always detrimental and contribute to the loss of that line rather than to its perpetuation.

And you again confirm that you nothing about evolution. The overwhelming majority (about 90%) of mutations are neutral.

Of the harmful mutatiuons a lot get weeded out of the gene pool prior to birth, one of the reasons for nonviable fertilised embryos is detrimental mutations, and a lot of fertilised embryo's never develop to birth.

 

[jonathan180iq]

And you again confirm that you nothing about evolution. The overwhelming majority (about 90%) of mutations are neutral.

Of the harmful mutatiuons a lot get weeded out of the gene pool prior to birth, one of the reasons for nonviable fertilised embryos is detrimental mutations, and a lot of fertilised embryo's never develop to birth.

And here's a Christian website expressing why it's a bogus claim to begin with...

CB102: Mutations adding information

 

[Shadow Wolf]

JJD is again suckering you into a mindless debate---and is no doubt chuckling about it.

How about something that isn't so childish, immature, and mean. Can you prove one instance where JJD is trying to intentionally provoke and inflame? I can easily point to one post of yours where you are doing just that.

 

[Skwim]

How about something that isn't so childish, immature, and mean.

Sorry that you consider the truth to be so.

Can you prove one instance where JJD is trying to intentionally provoke and inflame?

Don't know about inflame, but simply look at the statement I quoted.

I can easily point to one post of yours where you are doing just that

Go ahead and point. But I can assure you that whatever it is it isn't a statement I don't believe, which is my point. Time and again JJD has been told what evolution "teaches," AND even admits that

"I have read many works offered by evolutionists who state that they have "scientific" evidence that 'proves' that their claims are true."
(post33)​

so she obviously knows full well the underlying basis of evolution, but instead of conveying this knowledge she says things like the following which are outright falsehoods,

"But this is what evolution teaches.....that life sprang out of nowhere and magically became all the forms of life we see on this planet through blind undirected chance. There is not one shred of solid evidence that this is what happened."​

So you be the judge; what's her motive in making untrue statements like this? It certainly isn't out of ignorance. Mine is that she's suckering the reader into a mindless debate---and is no doubt chuckling about it.

 

[Unification]

Please note that you have yet to respond to what I considered a very cordial challenge to your position. You have easily and quickly entered into another bout of rhetorical retorts with other people, repeating the same fallacious claims about evolutionary biology, while failing to address some very valid points in my last response to you.

Here:
Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . . | Page 32 | ReligiousForums.com

And here:
Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . . | Page 32 | ReligiousForums.com

You took the time to call me out and tag me in a post (whilst offering no rebuttal) and then vanished from the conversation. Why?



If the Earth was formless and void, which process created the clouds and the atmosphere? Did God only jump into the equation after the natural gravitational confluence of mass formed a large ball in the habitable zone around an already burning Sun? Did he wait a few million years for the volcanic and processes to slow and chill a little bit before getting involved with his specific "creation" events? Also, why is the formation story written from the perspective of being under the clouds, and not transcendent to them, as a deity would be?



Again, why is the account of creation by a god written from the perspective of someone on the ground? Wouldn't god, in his infinite wisdom, been able to pass along some perspective for this process?



For the 37th time, that is not what evolution teaches. Evolutionary biology teaches speciation driven by natural selection. You yourself stop at micro-evolution, unwittingly assuming that evolving organisms have some arbitrary boundary to adaptation, as if it has this invisible line which keeps them from adapting past a certain point. There is no such line or boundary. Micro-evolution is evolution. Macro-evolution is that same evolutionary process expanded over longer periods of time.

Micro-economics is the study of economics on a smaller scale. Macro-economics is a larger scaled study of the exact same processes, principles, and theories. Would you not agree?

We do not yet understand abiogenesis. You have been told this many times. We do understand what building blocks are required in order for carbon-based lifeforms to exist and ultimately evolve.

Can you explain to us, please, what are the building blocks required of magic invisible wizards?



Grass and other vegetation are living things...

You also understand that grass and vegetation would have been existent on this planet for millions of years before the atmosphere could have contained enough oxygen to sustain larger organisms, right? That means millions and millions of seasonal cycles and hundreds of thousands of tons vegetative waste would have had to accumulate before there would be enough resources to sustain even the smallest form of animal life. Oceanic creatures would have had slightly fewer requirements, but by admitting that you're getting back to the ole "fish crawled out of the water" dilemma...



That first sentence alone pretty much disqualifies the rest of your statement, but let's just ignore that for a minute.

Have you ever read an actual scientific journal? You realize how incredibly packed with data they can be, right? And how monotonous and boring they can be because of that, but also how amazing they are for the same reason? Have you ever conducted a simple study of your own? Have you ever participated in any field work of any kind involving scientific studies? Have you ever participated in a higher education biology class?

You're so incredibly ignorant of the thing that you are railing against that I'm beginning to pity you for just how oblivious you are.

Fact - This is a wolf...

Fact - These are ears of corn ( Teosinte & Tripsacum respectively)

Fact - This is a horse (Hyracotherium)

Fact - This is an elephant (Moeritherium)

Fact - This is a dinosaur (Dromaius novaehollandiae; Emu)



Why should we make a false admission just because you guys don't like what we say? We aren't asking you to admit that your god is just a literary creation and an amalgamation of several pre-existing semitic deities, portraying the continuation of otherwise long-dead Mesopotamian mythologies, are we? We just want you embrace scientific observation, free of presuppositional arguments, and jettison ignorance and naivete.

If data leads to you a certain conclusion, would you prefer that they say something other than that?
If in the course of reasoning or sentence construction, you are explaining that something could have lead to something else, how would choose to state that?

Let me just give you one example showing why you're making ridiculous arguments. Imagine I'm studying a new species of plant discovered in a lower climate zone than expected. We have observed the higher climate species' pollen on the receptors of the lower climate species and can trace the new species as a hybrid of the two. I would simply say something in my conclusion like "The annual directional wind patterns in that area have lead me to conclude that the native spores of the inhabiting flora could have shifted downwind towards the lower geographical regions, causing cross pollination that would be otherwise inexplicable." According to you, my wording there should be taken as me trying validate my bias using this "odd" word usage... Studying the fact that a higher region plant has cross pollinated with a lower region plant, and after studying annual wind patterns in an area, wouldn't it be fair to say that my hypothetical statement, which could have been written in a scientific journal, would still be accurate and have nothing at all to do with trying to support "proof" in my very biased beliefs?



You mean unresponsive in the way that challenging questions to you are simply avoided in lieu of clever ad hominem one-liners?

Just as any casual reader of this thread can observe, it appears that you are avoiding to respond to legitimate challenges to your position by continually reverting back to your own previously debunked claims while still using the same bogus misrepresentation of what evolutionary biology teaches.

All I can assume now is that you prefer lying in order to maintain your position.

"We do not yet understand abiogenesis. You have been told this many times. We do understand what building blocks are required in order for carbon-based lifeforms to exist and ultimately evolve."

Sure, the number of the beast, life and the evolved animal that the human is,

666 represents the material reality ... the physical universe made up of Carbon atoms ... which has 6 Protons, 6 Neutrons & 6 Electrons.

"God" removing a ribosome from DNA, creating compliment RNA.

Man-DNA
Woman-RNA
Serpent DNA

 

[McBell]

Hey people, wake up! ​

JJD is again suckering you into a mindless debate---and is no doubt chuckling about it.

But hey, if this is what melts your butter . . . . . .

.​

You give her far to much credit.
There is nothing even resembling "debate" in her posts.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sorry that you consider the truth to be so.

You made the accusation that she is drawing people into a debate and laughing about it. I doubt that is the case.

 

[Skwim]

You give her far to much credit.
There is nothing even resembling "debate" in her posts.

Quite true; however, others here do debate what she says.

You made the accusation that she is drawing people into a debate and laughing about it. I doubt that is the case.

Okay.

 

[Unification]

"We do not yet understand abiogenesis. You have been told this many times. We do understand what building blocks are required in order for carbon-based lifeforms to exist and ultimately evolve."

Sure, the number of the beast, life and the evolved animal that the human is,

666 represents the material reality ... the physical universe made up of Carbon atoms ... which has 6 Protons, 6 Neutrons & 6 Electrons.

"God" removing a ribosome from DNA, creating compliment RNA.

Man-DNA
Woman-RNA
Serpent DNA

DNA has smaller grooves, which makes it harder for enzymes to "attack."

RNA has larger grooves, which makes it easier to be "attacked" by enzymes.

Leaven: enzymes.

Manna: sugar.

 

[shawn001]

Despite all the protests and claims of 'overwhelming evidence', I can categorically say that JW's do not accept creationism. We do not subscribe to the whole shebang being created in 7/24 hour days. We have a somewhat different take on things.
We accept adaptation within "kinds" but not that all life came from a single organism by the workings of undirected chance mutations. How many times must I say it?

We believe that it is entirely possible that the way the evidence is interpreted by those looking for the conclusions they have already reached, it may be completely skewed. A case of conclusions forcing facts rather than the other way around. No one seems to take that into consideration. This is what I see and hear when I watch documentaries or read material promoting evolution. So much is taken as a "given", accepted without question, when there is no "given" to begin with. Nothing is proved beyond doubt and that has been my position from the beginning.

You have no more actual "proof" than I do.



Do you know how many random mutations would be necessary in the supposed evolution of just one creature? Now multiply that by the billions of creatures we see in the world today and it becomes a little far fetched to believe that random chance could be so beneficial to so many kinds of creatures. Mutations are almost always detrimental and contribute to the loss of that line rather than to its perpetuation. Small adaptations in various species facilitate changes that may have occurred in food supply or in the environment, but they do not result in any species becoming something else entirely. Micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution
The speciation experiments did not result in flies becoming anything but flies....the fish remained fish. No matter how much time elapses, this will not alter.



The Bible indicates that God did take his time with creation. The creative days were probably many thousands of years in length. No problem for an almighty Creator to fashion what he wanted to make out of the materials he brought into existence with the "Big Bang". We are all made from the same stuff....the same raw materials are in all of us.



No, there is no "poof" any more than life coming into existence in the first place was a "poof" either. Yet isn't this what evolution maintains. Somewhere...somehow....life was just "happened" and mutated itself into all we see over millions of years. Evolutionists are quick to tell you that they don't know what caused life to come into existence in the first place, but they just know it had to be a "natural" occurrence....with no Intelligent Designer required.

You can all believe that if you like.....I can't.

"Despite all the protests and claims of 'overwhelming evidence', I can categorically say that JW's do not accept creationism."

That's good because evolution which has the empirical evidence is not creationism.

"billions of creatures we see in the world today"

Are the evolutionary relatives of the many billions that came before them and most went extinct. Dinosaurs evolved for 180 million years and before that another very large group of animals that were not dinosaurs.

But its completely pointless with you as you don't understand any of the science involved here.

How did our solar system form Jayjaydee? What was the process?