Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

Why can't you just answer my specific question? Did God make a generic bird that later evolved into bee hummingbirds and ostriches or did he make for example a generic hummingbird that later evolved into all the different hummingbird species or did he make each separate hummingbird species?

I really can't answer any more specifically than what Genesis tells me...any more than you can specifically answer about how long it took whatever the first birds were to evolve into whatever they evolved into....

Here is Genesis again...."And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind."

Every winged creature would indicate to me that they were individually designed and manufactured with procreative powers in place so that they could "become many in the earth".

God doesn't make generics.....every one was a genuine original.

 

[ArtieE]

I really can't answer any more specifically than what Genesis tells me...

Fair enough. And that is the problem in a nutshell. Stories simple enough for preschoolers and Sunday school but with no answers for people beyond that level. So we turn to science where we learn something new every day and where they at least try to find answers instead of just giving us a 2-3 thousand year old book and say "read and believe".

 

[savagewind]

There are over 10 000 species of birds. So what you are saying is that your god created one male and one female generic bird and this bird microevolved into all the different species of birds we have today like the bee hummingbird and the ostrich?

You're saying I am saying that. I do not know how it was done. I just know that there is not evidence of whole classes of animals coming out of a different class like evolution teaches. I REALIZE evolution says it takes tiny steps over generations for it to occur. I say, THERE WASN'T ENOUGH TIME FOR ALL THOSE TINY STEPS (For every class of animal there ever was).

So, I have a solution for you so that your model might match the time constraint.

I think the universe isn't even old enough for every power to perform on making to coordinate (or does all of physics just "know"?) and for all the ingredients to molecularly evolve (shut up, there is such I thing) .....this is new, so you have to read it slow, please......so there had to be an older neighbouring universe. They had to be existing and touching and I'll say why later. Now I shall apply your theory of everything to THAT universe assuming there was more time there, or maybe no time (as we know it) there.

So life evolved there somewhat like you say. It evolved to the point of amazing intelligence and that species with its intelligence was what brought life to this planet. The reason why their universe had to be touching this one, is how else would they have got here? Let's just say that their universe ended (something like Islam is saying this one will end) because I suppose there is not evidence of it being there anymore.

I can see life being born on this planet. I work so I know how long things take to get done (with a brain and tools, mind you). Evolution is without a mind and without tools. Evolution happens with just ingredients and blind force.....not enough time for the vast variety here.

 

[savagewind]

The ingredients of life also happened with smaller ingredients and blind force and THOSE ingredients happened with smaller ingredients and blind force and tell us please, where does force come from?

 

[savagewind]

I think I have another question.

This is tricky because of the difference between discovered and appearing new.

I think you know the difference.

Has a new element ever been discovered, not one found but one which is appearing new?

In the beginning, elements evolved. (can I use that word?) New elements have been discovered. I know that. The discovered ones, are they new or is there evidence that they have been around a long, long time?

So, is there any evidence for an evolved element?

 

[ArtieE]

I think I have another question.

Based on your last three posts I seriously think you should stop posting now...

 

[savagewind]

Based on your last three posts I seriously think you should stop posting now...

I am listening to you. I even gave you a present. You are mean.

 

[savagewind]

Based on your last three posts I seriously think you should stop posting now...

So, WE agree with you that organisms change over time.
We don't agree that those changes can ever produce another type of animal.

So, I ask you to explain how ingredients and blind force can do what it does and you and he say, "go away". Do you know how very stupid that looks?

 

[savagewind]

How long has it taken us on this thread to get absolutely nowhere?

 

[savagewind]

WITH BRAINS....almost four months......

 

[savagewind]

@Mestemia @ArtieE instead of telling me to go away and fly away home, why not tell me how the math would work? Change my mind. Tell me there actually was and is enough time for your model of evolution to work. Prove it.

 

[savagewind]

Just calculate how many changes might have been, about how long each one took to affect an evolutionary change and compare that to how many years you've got.

 

[metis]

I have had quite a few people ask about the emoji's.

Here is the link...

http://www.pic4ever.com/images/budo.gif

There are 15 pages of them, but they are not grouped, so you have to write down the page number if you want to use your favorites.

There are two ways to use them. In the task bar up the top when you reply to a post, you will see the "image" icon next to the smiley icon.
When you have chosen your smiley, right click on the image and choose "copy image location", then when you want to insert your emoji just select the image icon from the task bar and it will prompt you to paste it in, then "insert" it and there you go....easy as that.

The other way is to right click on the emoji and then select "copy image" and simply "paste" it into your post.

I think they add so much more to a conversation that just boring old text. The smileys here are just not enough to express the wide range of emotions that arise in these topics IMO.

Have fun.....

There are hundreds of them! No emotion is left out......

Thank you so much!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Scientists do not know how life began....period. They have been trying for decades to reproduce what they believe were the conditions in which the elements that came together "somehow" caused that spark of life to ignite. What science doesn't realize is that no matter how much experimentation they do, only the Creator can make something live.
Science cannot even make a blade of grass.

It can transfer life, but it will never create it.

You have this funny notion that God and "magic" are somehow synonymous, but the Bible says that they are actually opposed.

The term "supernatural" simply means "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." So, just because science can't explain it, understand it, or duplicate it, doesn't mean that it must be dismissed.

The supernatural exists and there is much evidence for supernatural forces, but science denies them because they can't understand them. There is much that science does not understand, yet it assumes this superior position as if it knows everything about everything.

It can dismiss a Creator because it can't prove his existence, yet it can readily promote another view that it also cannot prove. Do you see how unintelligent and illogical that position is?

You believe in more miracles than I do if you think everything just somehow made itself. You are as indoctrinated as you believe we are.

Science explains what it wants others to believe, but it can furnish only suggestions as to what it thinks might have happened according to their own pre-supposition. When that is exposed, it makes science look a little silly.....like the banana and fruit fly suggestion. The T Rex and the chicken saga is not doing a great things for science either.
I believe that this theory will self destruct in due time...

It hasn't been around that long if you really think about it.

There is no reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence. We have no empirical evidence for the supernatural, therefore there is no reason to include it in our models of the natural world. Unless you can demonstrate that the supernatural even exists in the first place, there's no reason to believe it exists.

Human beings didn't know anything about germs for thousands of years. Then we came up with germ theory and demonstrated the existence of germs. It wasn't creationism that elucidated germ theory for us, it was the scientific method. We also didn't know about DNA for thousands of years of our existence. Now we do, again thanks to the scientific method. But following your line of reasoning here, we should have just given up, claimed it to be impossible, and declared that "god did it" long ago because if we don't know something now, I guess we never will. (If we followed that line of reasoning we'd still be believing that Odin creates lightning bolts, for example.) Except that's actually doesn't provide any kind of explanatory framework for anything. And that line of reasoning is clearly an erroneous one.

Science is a tool. And a very effective one at that. It doesn't want anyone to believe anything. It has no desires. It's a method of inquiry used, with a built-in self-correcting mechanism, used to demonstrate the veracity of claims about the world around us (or to falsify them). And it's provided us with everything we currently know about the world we reside in. We don't have religion to thank for that. Religion gives us, "Well we can't make a blade of grass, so why bother examining grass and trying to explain it. Obviously God made it." That gets us absolutely nowhere in furthering our understanding of anything.

 

[savagewind]

Just testing

 

[SkepticThinker]

We do not separate the creation from the Creator, though I see that scientists have no difficulty in doing that.
The originator of the stuff you study should not be left out of this conversation....should he? Just because you dismiss him, doesn't necessarily eliminate him. I believe he will demonstrate his existence to you in due course.

You are free to ignore him, for now.



Oh yes, vaccines and antibiotics....don't get me started.

My personal views on this would fill pages.



No, as a believer, I could never compromise my views on this subject. Evolution is used to make God either disappear or to make him out to be a liar....neither of which can be true according to my very strongly held beliefs.



What "bubble" are you wrapped in?



I don't have to know how to perform brain surgery to know what a surgeon is doing. He will explain the procedure and what he expects the outcome to be in language understood by the patient and their family. Will understanding his medical terminology help me to understand any more than I need to? Why should science be any different?



First of all...we don't see a separation between our beliefs about the Creator and what he accomplished. Can I stress that any more? Creation is the foundation of science.
And secondly, we do not see science's position to be backed up by anything more than what they imagine "might have" happened 500,000,000 years ago and continued to happen as they produce their fossil evidence and their DNA analysis, based on what they imagine "must have" taken place. Not a single thing is provable, yet they protest so loudly when you press them for the same proof they demand from us. Go figure.

No, but I can quote you lots of people who are educated in evolutionary science who say exactly that. Have they picked that up wrong?

Where do you suppose they got that idea?


You are talking about adaptation......which science calls "micro-evolution"....that is not to be confused with "macro-evolution", where science uses micro-evolution to substantiate its position on how all life got to where it is today.....a position for which NO real evidence exists.



Yes we can. Genesis said that all things would reproduce "according to their kind" so in nature we see what mates are chosen and we can see exactly what a "kind" is. Living things do not seek mates outside their "kind". When circumstances are produced that force animals to mate outside of their "kind" (such as when humans force interbreeding) we normally see hybrids produced within their "kind" and that is the end of that genetic line. Mules for example cannot produce other mules. Sterility is a genetic roadblock to taking an animal, bird, insect, fish or whatever, out of its "kind".

Adaptation is not the issue. The creatures will always remain within their "kind" no matter what circumstances forced them to adapt. If you artificially produce something that was never meant to be, it will inevitably be sterile. Science wants to push that envelope, but where will it take them? Anywhere good? We are thankful for the ethics that keeps science somewhat in check.



Creation and the existence of a Creator who is more powerful than any force science can test.



I embrace what can be proven by scientific methods and which demonstrates the brilliance of the Creator in his design. What I reject is man's ideas when they take an excursion into fantasy and call it fact, eliminating the Creator and giving credit to creation for basically designing itself. You can do that if you like, but I will not.



"For over a 100 years"? Science is an infant....no, an embryo compared to the Creator.
The power of suggestion is a potent force in this world. The whole of the commercial world operates by this knowledge. Political rulers know that it works too. Science has placed itself on a pedestal and when it "suggests" something, people must believe or they will be ostracized.......how is that different from a religion? You just have substitute gods and and their 'holy' writings. All are required to fall at the feet of science.

Sorry, but I worship a real God with real abilities that have been proven to me with my own senses and logic. He has guided me all my life. I'm sorry that you have never been introduced.



Its only "the height of delusion" if you accept a different delusion. People who are deluded do not know that they are, otherwise it would not be a delusion

So who of us is genuinely deluded, only time will tell.....so we shall let it shall we?

After all, you have nothing to lose compared to me. So am I suffering greatly because of my delusion? Is it costing me my health? my mental well-being? my family life? my ability to reason with people like you? I will let others be the judge of that.

I will just continue to expose what I believe evolutionary science really is....a monumental fraud, based on no real evidence and lots of suggestion. You can continue to protest but at the end of the day....

this is what is happening.

Yes, it would. I think that's obvious. I can tell you this from personal experience.

What I am wondering is, why wouldn't it??

 

[SkepticThinker]

So sorry.....

But really that is very encouraging.

Mission accomplished!!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Scientists Observe Wasps Evolving Into New Species

The species of wasps turn into three new species OF WHAT?

I think that is what @Deeje is talking about. Why did the writer leave out WASP?

Perhaps because it's an article in the popular media, rather than a scientific publication.

A new species of wasp is still a new species of wasp.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes I do have a claim...as substantiated as the one science promotes.
We do not have dibs on "wishful thinking" as science has its own fair share of that. And as for "logical fallacies", the fallasy part is a matter of opinion, but at least ours are "logical" as opposed to the completely illogical claims made for evolution.
Are you related to a banana or a fruit fly Mestemia? Is T Rex a cousin to a chicken?

We have nothing cast in stone either, apart from the basic foundations of our belief in the Creator. We are always reevaluating and adjusting our views on things. Its what I like about being a JW. If we make a mistake, we correct it.


That is again, a matter of opinion. Sometimes the actual strawmen look like the real McCoy.

They need a brain and their companions need a heart! Some of us just want to go home because we are sick of living in a world where science has created so many problems that it cannot solve.

I don't think the dishonesty is intentional, but more to the fact that "suggestion" has power, and when it is widely accepted because of who suggests it, it gains momentum and you have a great body of supporters on board and a lot of ego stroking that makes men feel like gods. There is power, accolades and money motivating science and I believe that it has gone to their heads.

But that is just my opinion.

No, logic fallacies are not a matter of opinion. There are rules to logic, and breaking them is a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are not logical, by definition.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you guys just acting dumb? A Cane toad is a toad. A Blue Moon Butterfly is a Butterfly. I don't know what those other things are. I thought maybe you were getting lucky and someone had discovered a Nestor Notabilis was born of a Cane Toad, but sorry, it's a bird born of another BIRD.

And your problem with that is ... ?

What we want is a (I'm going to make it easy) a snake-like thing born of a lizard and then, the snake reproducing another snake.

Why would you expect to see that?