Snowflakes....designed or accidents of nature?

[shawn001]

Thank you for providing this very informative video shawn001. This is the only one that would play on my iPad (apart from the little short one on the turkey.)

I watched it twice actually because I couldn't believe what I was seeing the first time. I even made notes because of the significance of what was presented.

I viewed this video without the pre-conceived idea that what I was watching was fact. It's amazing what you see without the blinkers.

It begins with...."50 million years ago".....and takes us through the discovery of a small piece of skull bone found in a remote archeological dig in Pakistan.
The team leader, Philip Gingerich, couldn't figure out what animal this bone belonged to. So he gets the computer imagery going to perform a "reconstruction" and says this gives us an "idea" of what the animal "might have" looked like, based on what they know about other mammals. So right away it is "assumed" to be a mammal and the computer image makes it "come to life". The only trouble is, it is not substantiated by anything other than the evolutionist's imagination.

What Gingerich says next is classic....."I think it would have four legs...it would probably have short hair and may have hooves." He said he "expected it to be wolf-like" but that he "could not identify the order of animals that it belonged to." Science facts or science fiction?

How do scientists know what bones belong to which creatures when they find them? This video made me think they are rather clueless.

Then the clincher! He spots an ear bone peculiar to one creature and "this can only mean one thing"! This land animal is a primitive whale with legs! Of course it is! Pakicetus is a land dwelling whale. Who then, it is assumed, ran short of food on land because of climate change and had to "quickly "seek food in the water, because the said climate change had boosted photosynthesis and the oceans now became a rich source of food.

"The ancient whale takes its first tentative steps into the water".....(dramatic music in the background of course)

Gingerich then says..."I think they started out as scavengers"...running along the shoreline "feeding on dead fish that had washed up". I wonder how many dead fish it took to feed this one animal. Who is apparently alone and without a mate.
The "next logical step" he said was that this creature would then move on to live fish.
Is "I think" a statement of scientific fact?

But poor old Pakicetus faced predators in the water and his poor swimming ability meant that he got eaten and became extinct......but wait, there's a miracle lurking!

Pakicetus disappears from the fossil record only to return with modifications. How does one return with modifications if one has disappeared off the face of the earth? Now that is a miracle!

Computer imagery again fills in the gaps in our imagination. The trouble is, the gaps are filled in by the imagination of others. Not facts, but supposition...nothing more than educated guessing....and stretching it at that.

If only these scientists had real proof for what they spout off as facts. If they had no idea what species the bones belong to then perhaps they need more skill to interpret the "evidence" they find instead of filling in the gaps with guesswork and supposition. This just proves what I have been saying all along.

You guys are soooo sucked in by these supposed men of science who really prove that it is their guesswork that is submitted as the "proof" for what they say. There is no real evidence.....it is all interpretation fuelled by imagination.

Watch it again yourself without the blinkers and see what I see.




Now this one really made me laugh!

JayJayDee, whales are not the only things that has evolved and the fact you are saying what your saying is your opinions, which mean nothing since you certainly are no scientist. The universe has evolved for a fact, the solar system has evolved for a fact, life on earth biologically evolved for a fact and still is as well as the entire universe. Your lack of wanting to learn more and your preconceived personal notions will not hold it back.




"Whales "cetaceans" are mammals like us. Despite that "fishy" lifestyle, their physiology clearly reveals their mammalian features. How did this occur? How did whales evolve? What did they evolve from? The evidence of whale evolution is clear. The list of new fossil species exhibiting transitional features continues to grow. If you are ever asked for an example of "transitional fossils", this list is a great place to start."

Indohyus
Pakicetus
Rodhocetus
Nalacetus
Ichthyolestes
Gandakasia
Ambulocetus
Himalayacetus
Attockicetus
Remingtonocetus
Dalanistes
Kutchicetus
Andrewsiphius
Indocetus
Qaisracetus
Takracetus
Artiocetus
Babiacetus
Protocetus
Pappocetus
Eocetus
Georgiacetus
Natchitochia
Dorudon
Ancalacetus
Zygorhiza
Saghacetus
Chrysocetus
Gaviacetus
Pontogeneus
Basilosaurus
Basiloterus

The arguments your making against evolution are pretty funny to those that studied it and no we have learn way more since Darwin and know it was settled last century. You better alert the WT and the corporations that they were wrong and continue to be wrong for over 150 years now.

Wait,1870 was the year the JW's started. LOL

In 1870, Charles Taze Russell and others formed a group in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to study the Bible

Jehovah's Witnesses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"By the 1870s the scientific community and much of the general public had accepted evolution as a fact"

Charles Darwin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[shawn001]

I am glad you found the dino to turkey funny, because they are back engineering chicken gene's which carry dinosaur traits.

"
Paleontologist Jack Horner is hard at work trying to turn a chicken into a dinosaur
By Jackson Landers November 10, 2014
In 2009, the world’s most famous paleontologist made a bold claim. In “How to Build a Dinosaur,” Jack Horner proposed re-creating a small dinosaur by reactivating ancient DNA found in its descendants, chickens. His 2011 TED talk on the subject went viral. And then for the past four years, the public heard nothing.

While the Internet moved on to other viral videos and ideas, Horner and his team have been working on the “chickenosaurus” and moving ahead the science of evolutionary development. The project has already resulted in some of the first research into the embryonic development of tails.

The idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs is no longer questioned within the mainstream scientific community. Paleontologists have long studied the changes in bone structure of dinosaurs and birds over time. Meanwhile, molecular biologists have studied the composition of modern bird genes. By merging these scientists’ work, Horner, who is curator of paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, Mont., hopes to answer questions about evolution."

Paleontologist Jack Horner is hard at work trying to turn a chicken into a dinosaur - The Washington Post

You won't understand this but it doesn't matter.

 

[JayJayDee]

This is significant actually. There have been several studies but this linked to one. We obviously have the ability to digest milk and certain populations around the world have even lost that ability over time. We know that we did not have it 50 thousand years ago based upon the fact that we know we hadn't domesticated cattle at that time.

Adaptation is adaptation. Gaining a few digestive enzymes is hardly earth shattering. I know a lot of people who are dairy and wheat intolerant. They just have to watch their diet.

However on GMO's there is currently zero scientific evidence that they are harmful. Genetically modified foods aren't what people seem to think. For example can you tell me in your own words without googling it what GMO is?

I have just watched a video on GMO's which is why I mentioned it. It's what is not told to the general public that is a worry. Treating people like mushrooms is not a good thing. When man messes with the genetic make-up of living organisms to "improve" something, you can bet your boots that there is profit on the other end of it.

When we have a plant that is actually engineered to kill insects and is legally classified as a pesticide, and we ingest that plant.....then I believe that we have to worry about what science is doing to the genes in our food and in the organisms that inhabit our bodies. Anti-biotics have caused a lot of harm as well as being useful. Killing good bacteria in the gut is a recipe for bad absorption of nutrients. We are what we eat......but more importantly, we are what we absorb. Ill health is a very lucrative industry.

And adaptation is evolution. Believed to be was just conservative wordplay. It is fact that our jaws were larger and that our current jaws are not as large today. The hypothesis being that our changed diet drove the change

I have no problem with adaptation......but that does not make the leap to all living things coming from a single organism.

Somewhat yes. But the apendix is shrinking that we know for sure and its function (if any at all) is non-vital.

As I said...that depends on who you ask.

Seems to be again is conservative word play. We do have different genetic dispositions to resist different kinds of diseases. This is actually the most conclusive evidence that humans are still evolving. If you want proof then think about this for a bit. The humans that crossed the land bridge into the Americas at the earliest 13,500 years ago. Now far before that when humans first split into two groups in the Eurasian plains, one going into Europe and the other spanning across Asia, they began to evolve differently. Yes the physical features are the most obvious but the most drastic was their ability to resist diseases. The settlers that made first contact with the natives thousands and thousand of years later had such vastly different immune systems that the diseases that they carried over in their bodies wiped out entire civilizations. Disease killed more Natives than gun or sword.

Yes I understand that immunity is built. We are not born immune to disease but build up antibodies to the diseases that are prevalent where we live. When we recover from a virus we should have enough antibodies in our blood to prevent reinfection as we have a defence to that virus already. Coming into contact with a virus from another land such as Ebola, is a scary prospect.

Again they provided facts. The theory as to "why" is not fully substantiated but the fact that our brains have shrunk and may still be shrinking is fact.

This was "pick a theory".....toss a coin to see who's right. Hardly facts there. Only conjecture.

What part of this isn't considered fact. We know definitively that we have blue eyes and that they exist. We know what causes it is genetic and have isolated that gene. We know where it happened because of genetic tracing. There are several theories as to why it has persisted as a trait but we know it evolved and more or less where and when.

Read the way it was written....."someone" just happened to mutate blue eyes? Seriously.

Ironically the concept of religion is the oddity where people are forced to take up beliefs not based on evidence and shuns questioning and doubt.

I disagree. There is no one who tells me what to believe against my will. I am free to research whatever subjects interest me but I will not engage in Witness bashing sites. The Bible to us is what your science text books are to you. We look up to our teachers the way you look up to yours. We believe them because we have found their teachings to be in line with scripture. There is years of study on our side too, you know.

Everything that is believed to be scientific fact has been backed up and can be independently verified by whomever wishes. The only exception to this is the more high dollar tests but we can look at the evidence collected ourselves if we are unable to preform the experiments.

It isn't so much the evidence or the amount of it...it's the interpretation of the evidence that seems to be the problem.
They throw around conjecture like its fact....that is what bugs me. They take for granted that people don't question what they say. I listen to every word and just shake my head. You ask how we can believe in the Bible....I ask the same of those who believe in evolution.

Its like saying why trust a map? A map might lie to you and why you would blindly believe it to be true is such foolishness. But we know that map is used all the time and if the map was wrong then people would know and correct it. Similarly with science. We can explain everything that we "know" and more than that we can explain "why" we know it.

I believe that the Bible is the same. JW's teach the Bible as a book of wisdom and practical advice on how to live, day to day. It tells of the pitfalls of fallen human nature and how to counteract them. It gives advice on how to handle conflict and how to treat our fellow man. It foretells events long before they happen and tells us what the Creator has done in the past, what he is doing right now and what he will do in the future. I like what it says and I like the future it maps out.
Science cannot predict the future, nor does it give us any hope for things to get better. All we see is man spiralling further and further into hatred and greed....polluting the air he berates, the water he drinks and the food he eats. Nothing that sustains life on this earth remains uncontaminated......who is the biggest offender? Science.

Sience is responsible for the heinous atomic weapons and the chemical poisons being unleashed on this planet. Science is responsible for the pollution that pours into oceans and rivers with little regard for the environment or its creatures. I don't like the kind of damage science is doing in this world. I would say it has caused more harm than religion ever knew how to.

I have studied the Bible like you have studied science.....I trust the Bible but I don't trust the agenda of men whose sole aim is to discredit the Bible as myth and dismiss the idea of an intelligent Creator as hogwash. Sorry.

 

[Bunyip]

Adaptation is adaptation. Gaining a few digestive enzymes is hardly earth shattering. I know a lot of people who are dairy and wheat intolerant. They just have to watch their diet.



I have just watched a video on GMO's which is why I mentioned it. It's what is not told to the general public that is a worry. Treating people like mushrooms is not a good thing. When man messes with the genetic make-up of living organisms to "improve" something, you can bet your boots that there is profit on the other end of it.

When we have a plant that is actually engineered to kill insects and is legally classified as a pesticide, and we ingest that plant.....then I believe that we have to worry about what science is doing to the genes in our food and in the organisms that inhabit our bodies. Anti-biotics have caused a lot of harm as well as being useful. Killing good bacteria in the gut is a recipe for bad absorption of nutrients. We are what we eat......but more importantly, we are what we absorb. Ill health is a very lucrative industry.



I have no problem with adaptation......but that does not make the leap to all living things coming from a single organism.


As I said...that depends on who you ask.



Yes I understand that immunity is built. We are not born immune to disease but build up antibodies to the diseases that are prevalent where we live. When we recover from a virus we should have enough antibodies in our blood to prevent reinfection as we have a defence to that virus already. Coming into contact with a virus from another land such as Ebola, is a scary prospect.



This was "pick a theory".....toss a coin to see who's right. Hardly facts there. Only conjecture.



Read the way it was written....."someone" just happened to mutate blue eyes? Seriously.



I disagree. There is no one who tells me what to believe against my will. I am free to research whatever subjects interest me but I will not engage in Witness bashing sites. The Bible to us is what your science text books are to you. We look up to our teachers the way you look up to yours. We believe them because we have found their teachings to be in line with scripture. There is years of study on our side too, you know.



It isn't so much the evidence or the amount of it...it's the interpretation of the evidence that seems to be the problem.
They throw around conjecture like its fact....that is what bugs me. They take for granted that people don't question what they say. I listen to every word and just shake my head. You ask how we can believe in the Bible....I ask the same of those who believe in evolution.



I believe that the Bible is the same. JW's teach the Bible as a book of wisdom and practical advice on how to live, day to day. It tells of the pitfalls of fallen human nature and how to counteract them. It gives advice on how to handle conflict and how to treat our fellow man. It foretells events long before they happen and tells us what the Creator has done in the past, what he is doing right now and what he will do in the future. I like what it says and I like the future it maps out.
Science cannot predict the future, nor does it give us any hope for things to get better. All we see is man spiralling further and further into hatred and greed....polluting the air he berates, the water he drinks and the food he eats. Nothing that sustains life on this earth remains uncontaminated......who is the biggest offender? Science.

Sience is responsible for the heinous atomic weapons and the chemical poisons being unleashed on this planet. Science is responsible for the pollution that pours into oceans and rivers with little regard for the environment or its creatures. I don't like the kind of damage science is doing in this world. I would say it has caused more harm than religion ever knew how to.

I have studied the Bible like you have studied science.....I trust the Bible but I don't trust the agenda of men whose sole aim is to discredit the Bible as myth and dismiss the idea of an intelligent Creator as hogwash. Sorry.

Many of those scientists you insult are good honest Christians.

Science is just a tool, a way to learn. It is not responsible for anything.

 

[FearGod]

Then you would logically know ID is JUST a Christian movement.

"Reality is different than what fact is"

Say what?

So what if a Christian movement ?! , we discuss the ideas and not religion.

Yes, reality is differ than what fact is, strange statement but a true one

For example we know that gravity is a fact but we don't know the reality behind it and as i said 1+1 = 2 is a fact but isn't the reality
Fossils are facts but not the reality, we only make a guess work for what had happened, atheists make stories to support their ideas that God wasn't needed, for them the inanimate stone did it or in other words the nature, whereas theists (as me) support intelligence and design or in other words God did it.

 

[JayJayDee]

Many of those scientists you insult are good honest Christians.

Good honest Christians do not engage in dishonest research....nor do they sell out to the opposition under pressure.
God did not create evolution......he created living creatures who were designed to adapt and reproduce with no interference from him.

Only man is designed to follow the directions of his Creator.....it is clear that he was not designed to govern himself.

Science is just a tool, a way to learn. It is not responsible for anything.

Of course not...the atomic weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki just evolved out of an accidental mutation in a lab.

The thalidomide that produced countless numbers of deformed children also just evolved.

Prescription drugs (the products of science) kill more people than illicit drugs do, but they are still freely sold over the counter when cannibis is a banned substance and has been for years. The medicinal use of cannibis is now proven to be effective in many illnesses, yet despite not one single death from a cannibis overdose, it remains illegal in most countries....Fo figure.

And the chemical pollutants ruining the planet aren't a result of science either! They are just a natural by-product of greed.

Do I sense some denial here?

 

[Bunyip]

Good honest Christians do not engage in dishonest research....nor do they sell out to the opposition under pressure.
God did not create evolution......he created living creatures who were designed to adapt and reproduce with no interference from him.

Only man is designed to follow the directions of his Creator.....it is clear that he was not designed to govern himself.



Of course not...the atomic weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki just evolved out of an accidental mutation in a lab.

The thalidomide that produced countless numbers of deformed children also just evolved.

Prescription drugs (the products of science) kill more people than illicit drugs do, but they are still freely sold over the counter when cannibis is a banned substance and has been for years. The medicinal use of cannibis is now proven to be effective in many illnesses, yet despite not one single death from a cannibis overdose, it remains illegal in most countries....Fo figure.

And the chemical pollutants ruining the planet aren't a result of science either! They are just a natural by-product of greed.

Do I sense some denial here?

Most good honest Christians accept evolution as a fact. Creationism is a small subset of Christianity. And yes, you are a denialist.

 

[FearGod]

Most good honest Christians accept evolution as a fact. Creationism is a small subset of Christianity. And yes, you are a denialist.

Nothing can be evolved without being created first, it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Bunyip]

Nothing can be evolved without being created first, it doesn't make any sense.

Evolution is not about origins.

 

[FearGod]

Evolution is not about origins.

Yes i know, but when we say something has evolved then it has an origin before being evolved.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes i know, but when we say something has evolved then it has an origin before being evolved.

Sure, but why do you insist on confusing origins for evolution?

 

[FearGod]

Sure, but why do you insist on confusing origins for evolution?

I'm not making any confusion other than saying facts.

Creation means making something new, you for example is different creation than me, yes we're all humans but everyone is different, no one is alike.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm not making any confusion other than saying facts.

Creation means making something new, you for example is different creation than me, yes we're all humans but everyone is different, no one is alike.

Sure, we are all unique - that's evolution for you. What is your point?

 

[FearGod]

Sure, we are all unique - that's evolution for you. What is your point?

Creation doesn't mean bringing something out of nothing, creating means to develop something which is already existing.
We say that you and i are new creations, we can never say we're new evolutions.

 

[Bunyip]

Creation doesn't mean bringing something out of nothing, creating means to develop something which is already existing.
We say that you and i are new creations, we can never say we're new evolutions.

Why not? We are modern organisms.

 

[FearGod]

Why not? We are modern organisms.

What do you mean by we are modern organisms ?

 

[Bunyip]

What do you mean by we are modern organisms ?

That we evolved recently. Humans are only a couple of million years old.

 

[FearGod]

That we evolved recently. Humans are only a couple of million years old.

So we're different creations than the previous ones.

 

[Bunyip]

So we're different creations than the previous ones.

We evolved, there is no need for a creator. Believe if you wish, but a creator is redundant.

 

[FearGod]

We evolved, there is no need for a creator. Believe if you wish, but a creator is redundant.

But not everyone have to believe a lie, but of course some are free to believe whatever they wish.