-
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?
- Thread starter JayJayDee
- Start date
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
One would have to ask the same question of the scientists who have been proven to be frauds in producing false evidence through the decades, desperate for accolades and prominence in their fields. Shame and humiliation followed when their evidence was proven to be manufactured.
Man was never the stooping ape-like "brutes" that the evolutionary theory promotes. He was always fully erect and intelligent. Yet this animalistic image remains with many people as a given.
- Intelligent design advocate Jonathan Wells wrote in Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? (2002) that "Although it is widely used to show that we are just animals, and that our very existence is a mere accident, the ultimate icon goes far beyond the evidence."[4] The book takes its title from the illustration and its imitations.
I don't have to wonder why scientists want to deceive the general public and destroy belief in the existence of a Creator. The Bible tells us why.
outhouse
Atheistically
Well your factually wrong.
You cannot refute the facts the rest of the world lives by, just because you have personal faith
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Example please? And is that an admission that honesty has no value to you?
No, that is false. We are still apes. A fact of taxonomy by the way, nothing to do with evolution.
Many of those scientists you insult are believers. The conspiracy you suggest is frankly ridiculous. The Watchtower is lying to you - which can of course be proven. Makes you wonder what to make of their other claims, given that they freely lie about science.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
JayJayDee
Now in you last post you quoted the Watchtower saying that we were not ape like. The fact is that we are classified as apes in taxonomy. Leaving aside evolution for a second, we are still in the taxonomic classification of ape.
Now whoever writes the science articles for Watchtower MUST know this basic fact.
So ask yourself why the publishers are lying to you?
You also keep repeating the misconception that evolution is random accident - why do you keep doing that?
Now in you last post you quoted the Watchtower saying that we were not ape like. The fact is that we are classified as apes in taxonomy. Leaving aside evolution for a second, we are still in the taxonomic classification of ape.
Now whoever writes the science articles for Watchtower MUST know this basic fact.
So ask yourself why the publishers are lying to you?
You also keep repeating the misconception that evolution is random accident - why do you keep doing that?
Last edited:
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
I believe they more closely relate to truth. There are no "facts" provided by science that we reject. What we reject is the stretch that goes from micro to macro-evolution in the blink of an eye with absolutely nothing to back that up but educated guessing about what "might have" happened. One tiny portion of a skeleton does not divulge the rest of the story without a lot of gap filling by imagination. We do not attack true science....we embrace it and the one who brought all life into existence.
There is a group of unbelieving scientists with an agenda (supported by God's adversary) who like to interpret the evidence their way to uphold their own beliefs and credibility. Interpretation of the "evidence" has often been proved to be wrong and so is the supposition that went along with it.
I accept the real evidence....I reject the supposition. You guys don't seem to realise that there is a difference.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Why lie? Evolution is a fact you reject. As is the fact that we are classified as apes, and the fact that evolution is not random accidence, the fact that macro evolution is just speciation and was observed more than a century ago, the fact that all fossils are in fact transitional, the fact that the missing link was found when your grandpa was a boy and so on.
There is no 'stretch' , macro evolution WAS PROVEN BY DIRECT OBSERVATION OF SPECIATION MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO. Macro evolution is when a species of fly (for example) diverges into two species of fly. NOT the transition from reptile to bird.
No, you are attacking science by repeating falsehoods.
No, the real science is what you are rejecting and the lies from those with an agenda are what you are propogating.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
JayJayDee
Let's look at your position on macro evolution. Now if you look it up you will discover that the term 'macro evolution' first coined by a Russian Etymologist refers to evolutionary changes AT OR ABOVE THE SPECIES LEVEL ok?
So that means that when a species of fly (for example) becomes two distinct species of fly - THAT is macro evolution. It is also something that was proven to occur by direct observation more than a century ago.
Now the stuff you quoted from the Watchtower defined macro evolution as when a reptile turns into a bird.
Why does the Watchtowers definition differ so utterly from the actual scientific definition? How do you account for the fact that the Watchtower is clearly giving a false definition of a scientific term, and then using that false definition to mislead the reader?
Let's look at your position on macro evolution. Now if you look it up you will discover that the term 'macro evolution' first coined by a Russian Etymologist refers to evolutionary changes AT OR ABOVE THE SPECIES LEVEL ok?
So that means that when a species of fly (for example) becomes two distinct species of fly - THAT is macro evolution. It is also something that was proven to occur by direct observation more than a century ago.
Now the stuff you quoted from the Watchtower defined macro evolution as when a reptile turns into a bird.
Why does the Watchtowers definition differ so utterly from the actual scientific definition? How do you account for the fact that the Watchtower is clearly giving a false definition of a scientific term, and then using that false definition to mislead the reader?
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Wow, again its just amazing
"There are no "facts" provided by science that we reject"
That just cracks me up, because we are showing you billions of facts provided by science that you personally and JW's reject.
Talking about agriculture, you do know what GMO foods are right?
You do know there is a relatively new field called.
Evolutionary Developmental Biology
"
Limusaurus: A fossil confirmation of a developmental prediction
The early bird-like dinosaurs, most likely the early ancestors of modern birds, had just three digits as modern birds do. However, to paleontologists it appeared as though theropods retained the first three digits: the thumb, index, and middle. At first, it was thought that birds had the same arrangement. However, a close look into the development of bird digits confirmed that, in contrast, modern birds have retained the middle three digits: the index, middle, and ring(Feduccia and Nowicki 2002).
This created a small problem for paleontologists: it just didn't make any sense that birds evolved from dinosaurs, and yet retained a completely different digit pattern.
In 1999, Wagner and Gauthier came up with the solution to this problem: these dinosaurs actually had digits 2, 3, and 4, but a genetic frameshift mutation caused digit 2 to act more like a thumb. This gave the descendants of dinosaurs, bird-like dinosaurs, and birds digits with the outward appearance of the 1, 2, and 3 pattern. Genetic/developmental evidence in modern birds provided evidence for this hypothesis.
Limusaurus, discovered in 2009, confirmed this evolutionary hypothesis a full ten years after it was made! Limusaurus was a theropod dinosaur which still retained a vestigial piece of the "true" thumb digit. This proves that theropod dinosaurs did in fact lose the 1st and 5th digits, and retained the middle three(Xu et al. 2009).
Thus, a combination of evidence from developmental biology and the fossil record fixed a slight dilemna and confirmed an evolutionary hypothesis in one shot. In other words, we found exactly what we expected to find according to evolution. The opponents of evolution have largely remained silent on this issue, as this new evidence provides empirical support for the common ancestry of birds and dinosaurs, creating a large problem for intelligent design advocates and creationists.
Development of teeth in Mutant chick embryos
Mutant chicken embryos with a natural recessive gene have been observed to develop teeth. This strongly suggests that at some time in their evolutionary history, the ancestors of modern chickens must have had teeth; the vestigial genetic material for teeth must be present for teeth to develop. It is not conceivable that a bird without such genetic material would experience a mutation that could induce the creation of teeth independently(Harris et al. 2006). (Image Source: Credit Matthew Harris)
Mammalian Ear bones: A confirmation of the fossil record
According to findings in the fossil record, the mammalian ear bones were gradually modified reptilian jaw bones. There is a smooth transition in the fossil record that documents this; see our page on it, and Kardong 2002, pg. 275.
At the developmental stage, the same two embryonic structures that develop into the jaw in reptiles become the anvil and hammer in mammals.(Gilbert 1997, pp. 894-896). Thus, both lines of evidence converge on the same conclusion: mammals developed from earlier reptiles, and the mammalian middle ear developed gradually from the reptilian jaw.
More Information and TalkOrigins
Marsupial Caruncles
Turtles and birds use a structure called a caruncle to crack open the eggs they are born in. Although marsupial mammals do not give birth with eggs, marsupial newborns still retain a vestigial caruncle, indicating their shared ancestry with early reptiles. (Gilbert 1997, esp. Ch. 23)
Homologous fangs and glands in snakes
There are several taxa of snake, including venomous snakes, which are strangely dissimilar from another. For example, Elapid snakes have fangs placed at the front of their jaws, and Viperidae have similar fangs, while other snakes have fangs at the back of their jaws. An analysis of snake development confirms that these structures are homologous in the embryo; in other words, the same embryological structures forms these structures in adult snakes. This strongly indicates that these same structures were "jury-rigged" by natural selection in each snake lineage, and thus the taxa share a common ancestor(Vonk et al. 2008).
More Information
Hindlimbs in Dolphin, Whale, and Snake Embryos
Clear hindlimbs are visible in dolphin, whale, and snake embryos. These structures later disappear in development. Above is a photo of a dolphin embryo, in which the hindlimb buds are clearly visible(Sedmera 1997). Hindlimbs have also been observed in snake embryos(Raynaud 1990) and whales(Bedjer 2002).
Hox gene duplication in vertebrates
There is strong evidence and consensus that the HOX genes, which help define vertebrate development, were duplicated in the ancient past, as summed up in Hughes et al. 2001. (Image from source) A note on a possible source of confusion about Hughes' paper: he is not disputing the validity of the HOX duplication claim, but rather accepting it while addressing another specific issue entirely. Hughes simply provides a nice introduction to the concept.
Pharyngeal Arches
The same embryonic pharyngeal arches which form gills in fish are found in mammals and other animals, including humans(Gilbert 1997, pp. 380, 382). In mammals, these structures do not, obviously, develop into gills, but into structures which most likely evolved from gills.
This is a strong indication that we share a common ancestry with fish; the idea is that pharyngeal arches, which are very morphologically similar to gills, actually develop into gills in fish species. However, in modern mammals, these same arches develop into structures which would have evolved from gills. In other words, the gill organs of the common ancestor we share with fish have since been jury-rigged to serve completely different purposes in mammals. Creationists and intelligent designists simply cannot explain why the embryological structure that develops into gills in other species is still retained and mammals and has simply been hijacked to develop into other structures.
The pharyngeal arches in a human embryo are clearly visible in the photograph to the left.
Image Source
Evidence that the thyroid and parathyroid glands developed from fish gills
Fish use gills to control the level of salts such as calcium in their bodies. Terrestrial animals, such as humans, use parathyroid and thyroid glands to regulate Calcium in their bodies. There is extremely strong evidence that these glands evolved from the gills of early fish(Okabe 2004).
1. The gills of fish and the parathyroid glands are both located in the neck, while the parathyroid glands could effectively do their job anywhere in the body.
2. The parathyroid glands developed from the pharyngeal arches, the same embryonic structure the gills of fish develop from.
3. The same gene that controls the parathyroid glands, Gcm-2 is expressed in the gills of fish.
4. Both gills and the parathyroid glands serve the same purpose: regulating calcium in the body.
The evidence clearly indicates that the thyroid glands are the remnants of ancient fish gills in tetrapods.
Sources
Evolutionary Developmental Biology
Of course you don't
More then biology and the fossil record support micro and macro evolution.
You have posted so many errors its amazing you live on planet Earth. Its amazing you hold on to 1700 century and earlier ideas and its 2015
When they learned Birds are the ancestors of dinosaurs they started back engineering Chicken gene's to grow dinosaur traits.
Jack Horner and his dig teams have discovered the first evidence of parental care in dinosaurs, extensive nesting grounds, evidence of dinosaur herds, and the world’s first dinosaur embryos. He's now exploring how to build a dinosaur.
Renowned paleontologist Jack Horner has spent his career trying to reconstruct a dinosaur. He's found fossils with extraordinarily well-preserved blood vessels and soft tissues, but never intact DNA. So, in a new approach, he's taking living descendants of the dinosaur (chickens) and genetically engineering them to reactivate ancestral traits — including teeth, tails, and even hands — to make a "Chickenosaurus".
Jack Horner's Plan to Bring Dinosaurs Back to Life
The world's most famous dino-hunter says the key is embryonic development, not genetics.
Larsson is at the forefront of merging paleontology and molecular biology in an effort to connect major evolutionary changes—the development of new species and new characteristics, new shapes and structures, new kinds of animals—to changes in specific genes and in how those genes are regulated. He is interested in reactivating dormant genes or changing the regulation of active genes in embryos to bring back ancestral traits that have been lost in evolution.
Scientists can do this now because we have the fossils. We have the lessons of developmental biology. And we have the tools of molecular biology. All of these are being merged in the study of the history of life in evolutionary developmental biology, or evo devo.
Jack Horner's Plan to Bring Dinosaurs Back to Life | DiscoverMagazine.com
You also have no clue again about extinction events which weren't mentioned in you watch tower lies about science and evolution. You don't get it here, micro and macro evolution are a done deal, its a scientific fact and been proven, you just won't accept because in your world everything poofed into existence and that is a huge fairy tale, which is laughable under the weight of all the evidence, its like looking at a volcano and saying that is not a volcano and volcano's are not part of plate tectonics.
Big Five mass extinction events
Although the Cretaceous-Tertiary (or K-T) extinction event is the most well-known because it wiped out the dinosaurs, a series of other mass extinction events has occurred throughout the history of the Earth, some even more devastating than K-T. Mass extinctions are periods in Earth's history when abnormally large numbers of species die out simultaneously or within a limited time frame. The most severe occurred at the end of the Permian period when 96% of all species perished. This along with K-T are two of the Big Five mass extinctions, each of which wiped out at least half of all species. Many smaller scale mass extinctions have occurred, indeed the disappearance of many animals and plants at the hands of man in prehistoric, historic and modern times will eventually show up in the fossil record as mass extinctions. Discover more about Earth's major extinction events below.
Ordovician-Silurian mass extinction
The third largest extinction in Earth's history, the Ordovician-Silurian mass extinction had two peak dying times separated by hundreds of thousands of years. During the Ordovician, most life was in the sea, so it was sea creatures such as trilobites, brachiopods and graptolites that were drastically reduced in number.
Late Devonian mass extinction
Three quarters of all species on Earth died out in the Late Devonian mass extinction, though it may have been a series of extinctions over several million years, rather than a single event. Life in the shallow seas were the worst affected, and reefs took a hammering, not returning to their former glory until new types of coral evolved over 100 million years later.
Permian mass extinction
The Permian mass extinction has been nicknamed The Great Dying, since a staggering 96% of species died out. All life on Earth today is descended from the 4% of species that survived.
Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction
During the final 18 million years of the Triassic period, there were two or three phases of extinction whose combined effects created the Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction event. Climate change, flood basalt eruptions and an asteroid impact have all been blamed for this loss of life.
Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction
The Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction - also known as the K/T extinction - is famed for the death of the dinosaurs. However, many other organisms perished at the end of the Cretaceous including the ammonites, many flowering plants and the last of the pterosaurs.
BBC Nature - Big Five mass extinction events
So these extinction events like the asteroid that took out the dinosaurs didn't happen?
It actually doesn't matter what you believe in the slightest about evolution. Its happening to humans right now.
They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To
Our species—and individual races—have recently made big evolutionary changes to adjust to new pressures.
They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To | DiscoverMagazine.com
Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving
A comprehensive scan of the human genome finds that hundreds of our genes have undergone positive natural selection during the past 10,000 years of human evolution.
“This study addresses the question 'Are humans still evolving?', and the answer is 'Absolutely,'" study team member Benjamin Voight toldLiveScience.
Other studies have also reached the same conclusion.
Links to history
The new study links genetic changes to major events in the history of our species.
“There have been a lot of recent changes—the advent of agriculture, shifts in diet, new habitats, climatic changes—over the past 10,000 years," said Jonathan Pritchard, a human geneticist at the University of Chicago who led the study.
Many genes were found to be evolving in all three of the human populations studied. The specific functions of many of the genes are not known, but the researchers were able to separate them into broad categories. These categories include:
- Olfaction: the researchers found many genes important for taste and smell
- Reproduction: involved in things like sperm mobility and egg fertilization
- Increasing brain size
- Bone development and skeletal changes
- Carbohydrate metabolism: positive selection was observed for genes involved in breaking down mannose in Yorubans, sucrose in East Asians, and lactose for Europeans. (Mannose is a sweet secretion found in some trees and shrubs, sucrose is common table sugar, and lactose is a sugar found in milk.)
- Disease resistance and pathogen protection
- Metabolism of foreign compounds, such as exotic plant proteins or animal toxins
The researchers also found positive selection in four pigment genes important for lighter skin
in Europeans that were not known before. Scientists think humans evolved lighter skin in Europe as an adaptation to less sunlight.And in East Asians, they found strong evidence of positive selection in genes involved in the production of alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), a protein necessary for breaking down alcohol. Many East Asians can't metabolize alcohol because they carry a mutation that prevents them from making ADH. The new finding suggests that the mutation may confer some currently unknown additional benefit
.The study, which used data collected by the International
HapMap Project, is detailed in the March 7 issue of the journal Public Library of Science-Biology.- How Evolution Works
- Darwin's Natural Selection Still at Work in Humans
- Study Suggests Human Brains Still Evolving
- Intelligent Design: An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution
- Top 10 Missing Links
DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right
Molecular biologist Sean Carroll shows how evolution happens, one snippet of DNA at a time
One of the great triumphs of modern evolutionary science, evo devo addresses many of the key questions that were unanswerable when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, and Carroll has become a leader in this nascent field. Now a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin, he continues to decode the genes that control life’s physical forms and to explore how mutations in those genes drive evolutionary change. These days, Carroll also devotes increasing energy to telling the public about his field’s remarkable discoveries through a series of books—Endless Forms Most Beautiful, The Making of the Fittest, and the brand-new Remarkable Creatures. He spoke with DISCOVER senior editor Pamela Weintraub about what his work has taught him about Darwin, the nature of evolution, and how life really works.
It has been 150 years since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species, yet in some ways the concept of evolution seems more controversial than ever today. Why do you think that is?
It is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. On the science side our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What we’ve learned from the fossil record is confirmed by the DNA record and confirmed again by embryology. But people have been raised to disbelieve evolution and to hold other ideas more precious than this knowledge. At the same time, we routinely rely on DNA to convict and exonerate criminals. We rely on DNA science for things like paternity. We rely on DNA science in the clinic to weigh our disease risks or maybe even to look at prognoses for things like cancer. DNA science surrounds us, but in this one realm we seem unwilling to accept its facts. Juries are willing to put people to death based upon the variations in DNA, but they’re not willing to understand the mechanism that creates that variation and shapes what makes humans different from other things. It’s a blindness. I think this is a phase that we’ll eventually get through. Other countries have come to peace with DNA. I don’t know how many decades or centuries it’s going to take us.
DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right | DiscoverMagazine.com
This right here sums it up perfectly for you JayJayDee
"It is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. On the science side our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What we’ve learned from the fossil record is confirmed by the DNA record and confirmed again by embryology. But people have been raised to disbelieve evolution and to hold other ideas more precious than this knowledge."
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
That's exactly what you're doing. It's sad you can't see it.
Jared Jammer
Member
I think I'm someone who just exposed Ken Miller's dishonest B.S. in a single post.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
No, you dismissed his credibility - but gave no rationale.
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Well, in Googling "frauds in evolutionary science" there were several websites but this one was interesting.
Evolution frauds | Evolution is not science
Perhaps you'd like to address some of the "frauds" mentioned there?
And honesty has great value to me, which is why I reject the pseudo-science of organic evolution.
It is people like yourself who have swallowed the lie.....hook, line and sinker.
The "archbishops" of the evolutionary science world, firmly planted in their temples of higher learning, have led the masses into unbelief. They have substituted one "religion" for another with no more real "proof" than the ones they ridicule from their ivory towers.
Since the definition of a primate is......."any of various omnivorous mammals of the order Primates......especially distinguished by the use of hands, varied locomotion, and by complex flexible behavior involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability, we may qualify as primates.
Since we are omnivorous mammals and we have opposable thumbs which make our hands very dexterous, and we fit the rest of that definition, it makes us "human" mammals. Humans are a distinctly different creation to the rest of the animal "kinds". The gulf between man and his closest "relative" in the animal kingdom is enormous and unbridgeable.
Calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you one. Christians do not compromise on truth....nor do they substitute popular opinion for Biblical truth.
To whom? To those who don't believe in conspiracies?
You know what happens with conspiracy theories? A lot of them are flat out hoaxes, but some of them are the genuine article. What they hope is that you will write them all off, rather than use your own brains and common sense to weed out the fakes. The real conspiracies are hiding in among the frauds.
The scientific community is lying to you. They are passing off supposition as fact.
If you believe that lies are truth, that fiction is fact, then how do you prove anything else after that?
We tell the truth about real science, not about speculation masquerading as science.
We both have a "belief system" that relies on its teachers to form the basis for what we accept as truth.
Since no one has answered the very simple questions I have asked, it seems as if its almost beneath the dignity of some to address a simple approach to the subject of life on this planet like the Bible does. Can you tell me how Moses knew the order of creation? Genesis states that life began in the oceans and then to winged creatures, then to land animals and finally to man. Correct me if I'm wrong but that is the order that science also presents, is it not?
If the big question of how life originated, has an intelligent Creator as its answer, then the whole "theory" goes up in smoke. You all know that and I think it scares you.....or it should. If what the Bible says is true, then what you have sacrificed by accepting the wrong "religion" will be deeply regretted.
Your beloved science for all its marvels of discovery, has been responsible for more harm perpetrated on this earth than all the religions put together.
They will answer for this. (Rev 11:18)
You might want to worship the fraud, but I'll pass thanks.
McBell
Unbound
You don't.
Which is why you lost.
You merely keep repeating the same lies.
If your chosen deity approves of such behaviour, it is a deity I want nothing to do with.
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
McBell
Unbound
I have no fear of your imaginary friends.Suit yourself. It ain't over till the fat lady sings you know......
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
It's always helpful to copy and paste your favorite passage from the tome of confirmation bias...
Take two seconds, and see if you can figure out why your "Myth 1" and "Myth 2" cancel each other out. Don't just read the words on the page and nod your head in agreement. Actually digest the thought process behind these two exclusive explanations.
As a side note, you might want to at least take the advice of some of the larger creationist groups and stop using these very well known flawed arguments:
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use - creation.com
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Well you did not. Not in any way.
Your posted nothing against him.
Pseudoscience does not expose credible professors.
outhouse
Atheistically
Not credible in any way outside your little apologetic circle.
Not one university teaches this is any way, because it is not education. Its garbage.
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
I am beginning to wonder about you outhouse. All you do is make negative comments and hold up the education of evolutionists as if they are beyond reproach and infallible in their interpretations. Not one single shred of evidence has been presented in a simple fashion for the uneducated to understand. Science, of course uses ignorance to their own ends, just as Christendom has done through the centuries.
Do all the experiments in speciation result in producing a new creature? Or are all the "proofs" simply adapted forms of the same "kind" of creature. If that is the case, then simple logic has to tell you that there is no "hard evidence" for what you believe. You have to take the word of man for what they claim is true. Yet without the "hard evidence" what you have is supposition, not fact.
You accuse Bible believers of what scientists do themselves. That is clearly the pot calling the kettle black.
Can you take the cases presented in the link and answer them? Or is that too difficult? Were there frauds in evolutionary science designed to deliberately mislead the public and fellow scientists, just for the accolades? Was this theory promoted by unscrupulous men who were only after the acclaim?