• 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!

Snowflakes....designed or accidents of nature?

McBell

Unbound
Would you like to address the accusations in the link instead of all this empty speech Mestemia?

It isn't from JW's at all but interesting none the less.....

Evolution frauds | Evolution is not science

Anyone want to address these accusations about the many frauds in science? Are they true or not?
Yes there are frauds in science.
Just like there are frauds in religion.

The difference being that when a fraud is found out in science, the only ones who cling to them after the ousting are the religious....

Why would we bother addressing your link again?
You have already been shown the problems.
Yet you still present your link as though it is some sort of ace in the hole.

Sad, really, that your faith requires so many lies.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
He said...she said....who do you believe?

NOT a book full of historical errors containing massive amounts of mythology and pseudohistorical legends you know nothing about.

We choose to follow what EVERY credible university teaches as FACT.


I can see if one is 100% scientifically ignorant, and apologetically biased, one wont know who to trust or turn to. Its why we fight fanaticism and fundamentalism because unlike you, we care about our fellow man.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
He said...she said....who do you believe?
Yourself, of course. Then, gather information from both sides and make up your mind. I took some classes at the local college to learn more about evolution. That's one way to learn a bit deeper about what the scientists know.

Just like theism is defined by theists, and Christianity is defined by christians, Evolution is defined by "evolutionists" and not by books, articles, or pamphlets of the opposition. It's not the anti-evolution person who is to define and explain what evolution is anymore than an atheist is to preach in church to the congregation. So go and get it from the lion's mouth, just by simply reading books that are pro-evolution.

Secondly, when it comes to evolutionists, there's no real specific scientific field for evolutionists. Evolution is a cross-science or inter-science field that touches on many other sciences, so studying evolution, you're either a geneticist, bio-chemist, medical research, anthropologist, paleontologist, etc. There's no specific degree in "Evolution" simply because it touches many fields, and it matches in all of them. It's kind'a like math for physics, chemistry, engineering, technology, electronics, etc.

I know who makes more sense to me and I don't have to relinquish my natural intuition to accept their teachings.
That's all good in my book, but does that mean that a discussion should be done? You started this thread with attempting to challenge the idea of natural causes or God causing snowflakes. If you don't want to be challenged about your belief, then don't put it on display by challenging the opposition. You painted a target on your back and decided to stand in the center of the city square and shouted out to everyone, "I'm here! Come and get me!" :D

So... really, you started it. ;)

And I want you to know that I like you and like talking to you... even though I strongly disagree with you at times.

And concerning abiogenesis......that is a poor response Bunyip. If evolution was as concerned with how life began as they are with trying to prove their phoney claims, perhaps we might get to the real truth of the matter.
Of course it's a concern. It's a very good concern for evolution theory, however, how it began doesn't matter to how it's changing.

When you buy a car, do you ask which factory it was built in and where they got the metal? No. That's not a concern for you for driving. Evolution is a term that means change. Evolution is about how life changes. Abiogenesis is about how life began. There's a difference there between "began" and "changes". Different fields of study, but yet, very close relationship. They're like brother and sister.

You can believe whatever you like. That this thread is causing some concern to evolutionists is a bit telling.
Not more than the concern Christians have when mythicists start threads about the Jesus saying that it's all a fraud or hoax. It hurts anyone when they're views are challenged by being called fraud. Several JW's here have called evolution a fraud. And I'm as certain as I ever can be that evolution is true after taking those college classes that I feel offended like any other "evolutionist" out there.

You know that Christendom's "creationism" is wrong....so do I. But creation by an intelligent designer cannot be ruled out by any evolutionary scientist....can it?
And some don't. Theistic evolution, didn't I mention that some 200 times already?

If it isn't concerned with abiogenesis, then it could very well be all undone by the next discovery in that field....or even by the direct intervention of the Creator himself.
No. It wouldn't because

1. Evolution is about how life changes
2. Abiogenesis is about how life begins or began.

Car manufacturing is about how to build a car.
Driving school is about how to drive a car.

Are you concerned about the names of the people involved in mining the metals that the nuts and bolts were made of? You have to be, because you can't drive the car and the car doesn't work unless you know!
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Would you like to address the accusations in the link instead of all this empty speech Mestemia?

It isn't from JW's at all but interesting none the less.....

Evolution frauds | Evolution is not science

Anyone want to address these accusations about the many frauds in science? Are they true or not?

Sure. I'll do a quick overview without going in to sources or long explanations. We can take each one in depth if we need to.

1. Earnst Haeckels evolution embryo fraud.

I haven't seen it in any textbook in 20-30 years. Yes, I know it was mentioned shortly in one class I took, but it isn't considered evidence for evolution. You have to understand evolution first, and then you understand that there are vestiges of evolution which can bee seen in embryonic development. But it's not considered a proof.

2. Piltdown man, deliberate evolution fraud.

It was not easily accepted by the scientific community and heavily questioned by scientists, until it was proven to be a hoax. So it was never a convincing evidence except to a few. Besides that, we have now more than 2,000 human fossils that are not hoaxes, but real. How about looking at those instead?

3. Nebraska Man. False evolutionary model made from a pigs tooth. The pig was still alive too.

Yeah. One of the sad stories in science. Even science suffers from people who wants to make a name for themselves, but the good thing is that other scientists also want to make a name for themselves, especially by debunking someone else, so it is over time self-correcting. Like the article says, it only lasted a few years.

Notice a trend here? Other scientists reveal the truth about the hoaxes when single scientists try to create these frauds. In other words, one person's bad intentions are uprooted by the multitude of other people challenging it.

4. Java man

Same thing as above. It was a fraud from the 19th century. Have you noticed that these frauds are almost 100 years ago? The scrutiny today for fossil finds are so much higher. They science about how bones are tested, treated, and analyzed has gone through a huge revolution the past 20-30 years.

5. Neanderthal man, another deliberate fraud by evolutionist scientists.

A deliberate fraud? Really? Just like Christianity is a deliberate lie? No. When people say things like that, it's propaganda, nothing else. Anyway, we have DNA from neanderthal. It's not just a vitamin D deficiency, but a very different genetic code. I'm not sure what this author gets his information from. We have several hundreds of neanderthal fossils, so I'm not sure why this is a fraud?

6. Lucy the hominid. Evolutionists are clueless.

Clueless? I've seen it. What are they clueless about? It's an Australopithecus, which is an ancestor to Homo. It was an upright walking ape-human. We have at least 9 specimens of Australopithecus (yes, I can spell it without looking it up).

7. Orce man

It didn't even get to be presented before it was revealed.

8. Archeaoraptor

Never heard about that fraud. Instead, we do have whole fossils of archeopteryx, which is not a fraud (as far as I know). It's a dinosaur with feathers. It's still in the stone. We have at least 10 different specimen of that one. Is each and everyone of those a fake?

Archaeopteryx-fossil-004.jpg


9. Horse.

I heard there is a whole floor of unopened crates just with horse fossils in one of the museums, I think in New York. Can't confirm that story, but the point is that there's so much of the horse fossils that no one even cares of going through it anymore. We do have the evolution of the horse fairly well established. His argument that there are horses with different number of toes therefore it disproves the theory of evolution of horses is strange. The gene is most likely dormant, and a simple mutation can turn it on again, just like chicken have the genetic code for teeth, but it's turned off.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Shawn has provided literally thousands of words worth of explanations in this thread and not a single one of them have been addressed...
Yup. I saw some of those posts. Great material. I'm going to save this thread as a resource. :)

Here's another thought about Creationism that I never got an answer to before.

If we assume the Genesis story that Adam and Eve lived in a perfect Eden. Was sickness and disease there? My understanding is that there wasn't (according to the believers). That means, no virus (at least not harmful, but how can you have virus that is not intrusive? That's what they do!), no harmful bacteria, and such. All those things came after the fall. Then... when was our immune system created? Before the fall or after? If it was before, the God intentionally put an immune system in place for some diseases but not all before they came to exist. If after, then God must've practically re-created Adam's and Eve's bodies because it's so integrated in our body-plan, but it's not mentioned anywhere.

And going further, did Noah carry virus and bacteria on the ark?
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Shawn has provided literally thousands of words worth of explanations in this thread and not a single one of them have been addressed...

You had better get used to it.

The tactics some theist choose are often to

Ignore facts or willful ignorance
provide logical fallacies
never admit error.
misdirection
dishonesty
quote mining
special pleading

What else can one do when they are trying to prove people who lived in ancient times and wrote using mythology and rhetoric as a prose, were actually writing literally?

VS the atheist and educated theist

Who use

Sourced academics
Sciences such as
Biology
geology
anthropology
scholars
professors


Its not even a theist VS atheism debate. Its education VS denial of education.
 

jtartar

Well-Known Member
Amazing macro-photography of individual snowflakes [10 Pictures]

Please take a look at these amazing photographs. Do you see design in these beautifully crafted snowflakes?

No two are alike and there is no way to appreciate them with the naked eye. There is only this very special kind of photography that allows us to see what amazing things the Creator has made, just because he can.

Blows me away. :)

"JayJayDee",
The Bible tells us that we will never find out all the things that God has made, Ecc 3:11, 8:17,
The Bible also tells us that there is no excuse for not seeing and recognizing the manifestation of the Creator, God, in all the things that God has created, Rom 1:18-20, 25, 28.
Notice that in Job we are told that the thins we see now are just the fringes of His works, Job 26:14.
We are also told that God is doing things that we cannot understand, Job 37:5.
Since God has created things for untold eons, even if we live forever, and discover things every day about God we will never, throughout all eternity, discover all the wonders He has made.
Consider also, every time man makes some discovery in space, he states that they will have to completely revamp their ideas.
Probably,meant for us all, in a way, is 1 Cor 2:9.
When we contemplate The Almighty God, we need to recognize the name that He has given to Himself, a name that no one in existence can rightly use, JEHOVAH, which means that He causes to become. He is the First Cause, Jesus would then, logically be The Second Cause, because God creTed His son, as the very first thing in existence, Col 1:15,16, Rev 3:14. All other things after that were created Through Jesus, and FOR Jesus, because Jesus is His Only Begotten Son!!!
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
@Ouroboros thank you for the tone of your reply. It is so much easier talking to someone who can keep their emotions in check and answer without the condescension and hostility.

Agreeing to disagree is a much nicer option than some have taken on this thread.

We are all entitled to our view without jamming it down anyone's throat in a threatening or aggressive manner.

.
Here's another thought about Creationism that I never got an answer to before.

If we assume the Genesis story that Adam and Eve lived in a perfect Eden. Was sickness and disease there? My understanding is that there wasn't (according to the believers). That means, no virus (at least not harmful, but how can you have virus that is not intrusive? That's what they do!), no harmful bacteria, and such. All those things came after the fall.

Thank you for the question.......

The Creator gave humankind the perfect start. The earth, along with its extraordinary eco-systems was complete long before man ever drew breath. The food provided for all living creatures was perfect food and the air and water were also uncontaminated. Animals were designed with a perpetual life cycle, so death is a natural part of their existence.

Bacteria is a life form and so many bacteria are beneficial to the operation of the body. We know that our whole digestive system relies on it to function correctly. Our bodies and the bodies of all other creatures are crawling with a host of "good" bacteria....all designed to function symbiotically. We couldn't live without them.

Bodily perfection would mean all things were working in perfect balance within a pristine environment....with no pollution of any sort and no bodily imperfection to cause mutations.

As mankind spread his paradise conditions earth-wide (which was the original mandate) humans would encounter different environments and adapt to them as animals had done before him. All these adaptations would have been within the limits that God programmed into each creature according to his design.

I believe that mutations have an environmental cause that facilitate the changes. When the environment changes, living things adapt to the change. This is what we observe. The extent of the change is what we will differ on.

We see this ability to adapt in all living things.....it is a slow but automatic response to environmental factors. Adaptation facilitates life in an altered environment. No? This is the "evolution" that we agree on.

So what changed? According to the Bible....everything changed.

Then... when was our immune system created? Before the fall or after? If it was before, the God intentionally put an immune system in place for some diseases but not all before they came to exist. If after, then God must've practically re-created Adam's and Eve's bodies because it's so integrated in our body-plan, but it's not mentioned anywhere.

Neither scenario is true.

A perfectly functioning immune system is designed to keep "intruders" out. It doesn't mean that intruders didn't exist, but that human bodies had a defence system designed to detect these 'intruders' and destroy them, without us even being aware that this was taking place. Natural defence barriers kept humans healthy and resistant to any infiltration of foreign bacteria. Hence no disease was possible. Their life, though mortal was not designed to end. As long as they obeyed their Creator there was nothing that could harm them.

When humans rebelled and left their Creator in favor of independently ruling themselves, he in turn removed his protection of them and allowed them to reap the consequences of their choice.

First of all he cursed the ground that would grow their food. His blessing would no longer guarantee their food supply. He would let them supply their own food. They couldn't just wander over to a lush fruit tree in the garden and select their meal. Now they had to cultivate unproductive soil, which would grow copious weeds and thorny plants to compete with any food crops they may plant. Food now came as a result of hard sweaty labor and poor yield.

"Death" was the penalty was for their disobedience. It is not stated "how" the death penalty was implemented. But physical, mental, and spiritual perfection was now lost and the process of cell renewal in their bodies would begin to break down. Aging was never in the original plan for humans, but now their bodies would begin to deteriorate and their immune systems would no longer keep 'intruders' out as perfectly as before. This would facilitate the mutations that bacteria and viruses are known for....a changed environment. Still a measure of protection was there because their bodies were still close to perfection. With each successive generation however, the imperfection and decline would increase. A less than optimum diet from an unproductive earth and a propensity to make bad decisions because of losing their perfect abilities, would take its toll.

We see down through human history that life spans were directly related to how healthy their diet was and the standard of hygiene they kept.
Even today, we see the same thing. Even in countries where food is abundant, laziness and the availability of cheap junk food has caused an epidemic of grossly obese people who are basically malnourished. A malnourished brain is not one that functions well. People are dying from preventable diseases and making drug companies rich through their programmed ignorance. Science cannot abdicate their role in this scenario.

GMO crops are altering the human digestive system. When science interferes with the natural world, trouble always follows. Why? Because profit is always driving their decisions. They are clever at manipulating nature but what is the real cost? At a time when science is supposedly so clever...why are so many still succumbing to cancers, heart disease and neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's Disease? Why is it that all these "breakthrough's" in scientific research never quite materialize into the cures we all need? How much money is poured into these things and we are all still dropping like flies?

And going further, did Noah carry virus and bacteria on the ark?

All creatures on the ark would have carried bacteria....that is a strange thing for a science savvy person to say. Even you would know that.
You seem to demonstrate as much ignorance about creation as you assume that I demonstrate about evolution. :confused:

Please understand that I am not a theistic creationist. I do not subscribe to Christendom's view of anything...period.

Creationists give true Christianity a bad name. One can find the balanced view by taking all things into account. There does not need to be compromise.

The difference between adaptation, which we can call "micro-evolution" cannot be used to stretch it beyond what is seen, even in the fossil record.
The specimen you provided in the pic does not necessarily have to be an evolved species. Why couldn't it have been created with those feathers?

In the Genesis account, the "winged creatures" would have been anything that flew. These came after the living creatures that God began to create in the water. The Genesis account tallies with the order in which living things appeared.

The Genesis "days" were not 24 hour periods, but may well have been epochs of long duration. The Bible allows for all that we see in a reasonable compliance with what science can actually prove.
There is an old earth that God made habitable over a very long period of time. The Bible allows for this too.

But where we part company is where science fact crosses over into science fiction. All of the evidence for their "macro-evolution" theory is based on "micro-evolutionary" evidence. That is where the "might have's" and the "could have's" start creeping into the language. Its subtle, but it's there.

I will never be convinced otherwise no matter how many "proofs" are offered. I am guessing that the same is true for die hard evolutionists. We will each accept what our mind and hearts want to accept...and that is how it should be.

The readers will form their own opinions. :)
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
The only thing I can add is that the curse on the ground was lifted with the Flood. The earth no longer resists cultivation like it did prior. (Ge 5:29; 8:21,22) But this detail is not relevant to your line of reasoning. I think it sums things up rather well.

It is not that we are trying to be dishonest. We simply do not agree that what is called "micro-evolution" by some is proof of "macro-evolution."
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
It is not that we are trying to be dishonest. We simply do not agree that what is called "micro-evolution" by some is proof of "macro-evolution."
The very use of those terms, as if they are somehow different processes, demonstrates that you are being dishonest (or, alternatively, are just ignorant about evolution; although being ignorant about something and still feeling sufficiently educated enough to dismiss it is a dishonest tactic).

"Macro-evolution" is simply a lot of "micro-evolution". It's the exact same thing, only over a longer period of time. Saying "micro-evolution is not proof of macro-evolution" is like saying "just because you can walk next door is't proof that you can walk to the supermarket". The fact that things change slightly over a short period of time is pretty rock-solid evidence that things can change a great deal over a longer period of time, but it isn't even the best example of evidence for speciation. We have the fossil record and genetics, either of which are strong enough alone to make common ancestry a dead certainty among 99.9999% of the world's biologists.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
AIP facts of evolution.

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

  1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
  2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
  3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
  4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.
Nothing you say, can refute a single word, nor any source you choose will change one of these FACTS.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
The only thing I can add is that the curse on the ground was lifted with the Flood. The earth no longer resists cultivation like it did prior. (Ge 5:29; 8:21,22) But this detail is not relevant to your line of reasoning. I think it sums things up rather well.

It is not that we are trying to be dishonest. We simply do not agree that what is called "micro-evolution" by some is proof of "macro-evolution."
No, the dishonesty is to say "Evolution is wrong!" when you really is trying to say "Macro-evolution is wrong, but micro-evolution is true."

The honesty starts with arguing the right things.

There are millions of species on this planet right now. The fossil record shows that we have only a fraction of species living today that have existed through the eons. Which means that Noah never had all species on his ark. Secondly, all the species we have today must've then evolved from Noah's "kinds", which means that micro-evolution has gone on a super-speed the past 4,000 years producing all these millions of species from these few "kinds".
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
JayJayDee
Would you like to address the accusations in the link instead of all this empty speech Mestemia?

It isn't from JW's at all but interesting none the less.....

Evolution frauds | Evolution is not science

Anyone want to address these accusations about the many frauds in science? Are they true or not?


The discovery institute! LOL

They are addressed here and you should seriously read this and lost the court case and were shown lying under oath. They have an agenda and were caught.

Intelligent Design on Trial
Science is "Exhibit A" in a landmark trial on the teaching of evolution.Aired November 13, 2007 on PBS

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial


The Wedge Document

The Wedge Document | NCSE
 

outhouse

Atheistically
The tactics some theist choose are often to

apologetic sources that hold NO academic credibility what so ever. Basically lies to good theist who are often uneducated and looking for confirmation more so then actual data.

Ignore facts or willful ignorance
provide logical fallacies
never admit error.
misdirection
dishonesty
quote mining
special pleading



VS the atheist and educated theist

Who use

Sourced academics
Sciences such as
Biology
geology
anthropology
scholars
professors
Universities


Its not even a theist VS atheism debate. Its education VS denial of education.
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
No, the dishonesty is to say "Evolution is wrong!" when you really is trying to say "Macro-evolution is wrong, but micro-evolution is true."

The honesty starts with arguing the right things.

Learning the terms as they are understood by the person you are talking to does help avoid arguing over things where there is not any real disagreement. It is a tough lesson to learn sometimes but crosses over into any subject.

There are millions of species on this planet right now. The fossil record shows that we have only a fraction of species living today that have existed through the eons. Which means that Noah never had all species on his ark. Secondly, all the species we have today must've then evolved from Noah's "kinds", which means that micro-evolution has gone on a super-speed the past 4,000 years producing all these millions of species from these few "kinds".

Yes the size of the ark was limited to the carrying capacity equal to about 10 freight trains of 25 American boxcars each or about 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) of usable space. But not all "kinds" were brought along. Only those that were in existence at the time of the Ark's construction and only those that would not naturally survive a flood of this magnitude (like all the sea life). Some investigators have said that just 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles could have produced the great variety of species of these creatures that are known today. So, yes, "micro-evolution" has been busy.
 

McBell

Unbound
Learning the terms as they are understood by the person you are talking to does help avoid arguing over things where there is not any real disagreement. It is a tough lesson to learn sometimes but crosses over into any subject.



Yes the size of the ark was limited to the carrying capacity equal to about 10 freight trains of 25 American boxcars each or about 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) of usable space. But not all "kinds" were brought along. Only those that were in existence at the time of the Ark's construction and only those that would not naturally survive a flood of this magnitude (like all the sea life). Some investigators have said that just 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles could have produced the great variety of species of these creatures that are known today. So, yes, "micro-evolution" has been busy.
Please be so kind as to define "kind" in a meaningful and or useful manner.
 
Top