Two Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door...

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not sure why you're laughing, what Vex said is true.

Was there any point in your comment at all or did you just try and use a laughing emoticon to make it seem like this was deserving of mockery? Can you actually make a counter argument to any of this? or are you just going to play a game of petty apperances?

What are you talking about? Your basis on what you consider right presupposes that you don't take scientific evidence for what it is and put a trust of divine inspiration in a book the latter half of which was written over a hundred years after the fact in piecemeal.

Your only response was to use a lmfao emoticon, a sure sign of a lack of respect and an inability to actually create a real counter-argument. You simply think you can say that some deity says this book is perfect and that all inconvenient science is wrong when the bible has been disputed on all sorts of historical grounds as untrue.

That is despicable.

Its a lot easier to laugh in someone's face when they give one an honest answer they know shuts down their argument, than either acknowledging error or rebutting the points made against them...

You are then foolish for equating your happiness with correctness. Furthermore you don't actually argue why anyone is wrong about evolution here and I will show you why later.
I couldn't care less if you were an aspie. Then you go and talk about great wisdom given to you by god. Suggesting that if your God didn't exist you're basically tooting your own horn. I can certainly see no example of wisdom in the rest of your post, just winding argumentum ad verecundiam.



Again you show a complete inability to understand the word theory. Theory means explanation. it doesn't have anything to do with proof or lack of proof of evolution. Also evolution has been shown many times over and over and over to be demonstrable fact. From fossils to selective breeding evolution has been proven to exist, occur and be controllable.

You seem to insist that because a particular word was used that somehow means something that favours your opinion. I would call this extremely shallow. Unless you can say why evolution is wrong, because plenty of people hjave given links already that prove it beyond doubt on this thread, you are just playing a semantics game.


So basically you are saying that all scientists have joined in a conspiracy to lie to people because your particular god created all animals because your Bible said so. To say so is a self-sanctimonous level of unproven, heartless supposition.


This presupposes that the bible must be correct. Argumentum ad verecundiam. Furthermore there is much reason to say that your creation story is incorrect with various fossils showing thatmany animals we know of today appeared in near-modern forms around 20 million years ago and ourselves 2 million years ago.


To be honest your need to try and justify an otherwise unsubstantiated position by believing that the bible must be correct is amazingly unwise and conceited. I can say that if you actually approached this from a neutral perspective like I did you may actually change your mind. Instead you just decide in fiat that your bible is correct and because evolution doesn't match what is in the bible therefore it must be wrong.

That is the most closed-minded opinion I have ever seen.

Last edited by Gedrene on 02 Nov 2011, 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

SOME things Vex said is true. Not all of it.

Look, I'm not going to argue that evolution DOESN'T happen. Braveface pointed out that what I was talking about is adaptation. I think "adaptive variation" might be a better, or more accurate, term for what we call "evolution." But that is really the only explanation for what observable evolution really is. Take bacteria, for instance... We have numerous antibiotics, many of which are just variations of penicillin, to ward off bacterial infections. You have to take all of an antibiotic prescription to make sure enough of the bacteria is killed off that it doesn't have a chance to become resistant to the medicine. And in spite of taking all of your meds, there is still a chance that a resistant, aggressive form of bacteria can emerge.

What actually happens, though, is that bacteria develop resistance to current antibiotics because those are the ones in that particular strain's environment. Without older drugs, the bacteria that evolve eventually lose their resistance to older drugs. And so from time to time doctors are prescribing "outdated" antibiotics and, because of how evolution works, can continue to cycle through other "outdated" meds in treating infections effectively.

And often with species populations, new characteristics appear dependent on the environment. Remove the environmental factor, and past forms of the species will eventually return if traces of them exist.

I don't buy into man-from-monkey OR common ancestor, and here's why: All organic life depends on DNA for its appearance. If two species--lets say man and monkeys--have a characteristic in common, like "hands," for instance, then there's a gene for that. So of course it "appears" that man and monkeys are cousins. But it's not good evidence that they really are. Also, as I said, ALL organic life depends on DNA/RNA, and DNA chains are complex. They all require some basic mechanism in order to work at all, so it should come as no surprise to find human DNA might even have a few things in common with plant DNA. I'm not an expert in molecular biology, so I have to stop right there. But this is all basic jr. high stuff that most everyone ought to know.

There is such a thing as evolutionary theism, btw, and arguments can be made that this view isn't incompatible with the Bible. I just think it undercuts the miraculous creative power of God--and that's just my opinion. Only FAITH regarding salvation really matters in the end.

Those that hold to hard Darwinism are flat wrong. The "thousands and thousands" of transitional fossils are not there, for one. Oh, they'll SAY they're there, and even argue that opponents just won't be satisfied. One particular problem is the argument is one-sided. Probably evidence against evolution is just ignored, hence why we say there isn't any. We're no more willing to be convinced against evolution than others of us are convinced in favor of it.

And exactly what is the basis for which we SHOULD believe differently? Talking to opponents of evolution here. Once you get right down to it, you about need an advanced degree to understand all the nuances that make evolution go. For the average Joe, that's not a viable option. So a lot of the arguments in favor of evolution boil down to an appeal to authority. "Evolution happens because some university professor said so." That's not an argument against evolution. But neither does it make evolution arguments any more convincing.

Not to mention a certain scientific "dirty word": abiogenesis. It has NEVER been proven to have produced a single living organism. And without a mechanism for the appearance of a single common ancestor, evolution cannot happen. Vex seems fairly knowledgable about evolution, certainly a lot more than I am. I admit that. So I find the response to the problem of abiogenesis much more hilarious.

That is a definition of genes that is so amazingly untrue I feel that I must judiciously correct you. There are no genes that make a hand. You cannot take a gene that creates leopard spots, put it in to a pig, and then instantly create leopard-spotted pigs. There are no genes for an elephant's trunk.

Genes code for proteins, that is all. These proteins interact with molecules in various ways. An enzyme is a typical protein. It changes something in to something else. Maltase will form a complex with maltose and after a reaction two glucose molecules will form. That is about as complex as a single gene is. Genes do not code for body parts. A whole collection of genes will be involved in various characteristics and often not just define one characteristic. As some genes change the effect will be gradual, not instant. To say that there is a gene for hands is amazingly untrue.


It's people cherry picking and saying that a christian god can exist whilst denying factual evidence towards evolution at the same time. People shouldn't cherry pick the truth just because it's inconvenient for their religion.


Untrue. I manged to and I don't think I am a top-flight scientist. Millions of people have been easily able to explain it To be honest this is just trying to inbject a characteristic in to evolutionary theory that isn't true.


You talk as if you are making anatural viewpoint but you have so far managed to make a definition of genes so bad that a biology student of modest confidence in a UK sixth-form college could easily correct you.
Now you try and say that because science hasn't delivered a particular answer then of course science cannot be right. But of course only a person who wants easy answers would want to say that because science doesn't know everything then science must be wrong

Abiogenesis is not a dirty word in biology at all. As one can plainly see abiogenesis is readily discussed by scientists who wonder how life did form. There are multiple theories, all of which have their strengths and weaknesses and none of which have been proven so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models

Whenever you try and claim that something isn't correct yet it has scientific proof you have misinterpreted scientific theorems. Now when scientists don;t have all the answers you play a god of the gaps game, saying that god must be correct because science hasn't got a definitive answer for everything yet.

Evolution involves adaptation. Sometimes species (which are really just DNA apparatus, that utilize the environment to built complex self-replicating systems that are further capable of interacting with the environment, at least in my view...) are incapable of adaption hence why most life that existed on Earth no longer does. Or their adaptation leads them down a path that makes them quite dissimilar from their previous generations; take whales for instance, that evolved from a species that originated in the ocean, made the transition to being a land mammal for millions of years, and then returned to the ocean as the largest species of vertebrates still in existence. Why did they become an aquatic species? It certainly did not happen overnight, but it wasn't because evolution is some kind of cyclical event. Sometimes later on its certainly possible that traits seen in earlier generations might become dominant again but it is merely a coincidence created by the right conditions over millions of years, and sometimes even shorter periods of time. This is something that you have to consider when you look at later parts of your thesis:



This is not exactly correct. Bacteria evolve rapidly to fight against antibiotics. However there are numerous species of bacteria that exist that are very similar to each other but are slightly different species. As with all forms of life there are small variations between their populations as you go through the Earth's geography. This diversity is partially what is responsible for allowing them to evolve immunities as some groups will survive and prosper due to their genetics. What I think you don't understand is that species don't always rapidly disappear and in fact do not always disappear through extinction. That is what evolution and the fossil record has shown us. They simply keep changing over time as variations are introduced or removed by environmental factors. There are still technically traces of most species, in our DNA; if the environment became adequate for a past life form to "reappear" through this... "retroactive evolution"... you would expect that it would already have happened and not be explainable by convergent evolution



Where do you think the codes for "hands" came from (wait, nevermind, I can guess)? And besides that, that is such an inaccurate way of describing DNA, it really doesn't work that simply. There are such variations even between individuals that you will find there are many different code sequences that can be responsible for similar things. This is the beauty of convergent evolution.



The only way that the theory of evolution should be interpreted is scientifically. You can believe whatever you want about God but it is ethically wrong to attempt to change science based on religious beliefs and will be the detriment of the West if we allow it to interfere



How can you possibly say that there are no transitional fossils? What evidence do you have for this? Have you investigated the millions of pages that exist that document every single known species that has ever existed and perused them for some time, investigating every nuance about them and thus deciding they all were simply variations on an original life form that would later reappear when the conditions were right? It is rather convenient that the "evidence against evolution is ignored". This is tantamount to saying "Well, I have no facts against it, but in my gut I know its wrong, so there is thus a conspiracy" Do you have any evidence that... evidence... is being suppressed?



You don't need an advanced degree, though it certainly helps... You need to spend time reading and building comprehension, speaking to people knowledgeable about the subject, not the random "Bible skeptics" who know little to nothing about it and claim there are "no transitional fossils". Its really not an appeal to authority, it is an appeal to reason and rational knowledge. You need to commit time to learning about it, like anything else. Most of the people who argue against it know very, very little about it and spend very little time actually reading any peer reviewed literature. Its comical



Of course it has. We all exist now, don't we?

Unless abiogenesis can be reproduced in an observable lab setting or in a natural setting and actually OBSERVED, it is an unfalsifiable "theory." That's not science--it's science fiction. Asserting "we exist, therefore abiogenesis" is just question-begging.

As for the rest of your response--I'm not trying to deliberately obscure scientific facts surrounding biology, such as with the bacteria analogy. I was trying to keep things simple, more like on an 8th grade level. It's reasonable to assume that reality is much more complex than that. To completely eradicate genetic characteristics within a population would mean total extinction, something that isn't really feasible when treating bacterial infection, for example. We probably all carry traces MRSA, but it only presents itself and becomes a problem when immunity is compromised and it gains a habitat within a host. So given the genetic diversity of the populations, it's reasonable to conclude that SOMETHING is going to survive even our best efforts, but whether it causes problems has to do with other environmental factors, such as whether the human body can get rid of the microbe without any help and keep the population under control. After all, some bacteria are actually symbiotic. You're basically echoing my point--they survive in part because they are different and ultimately that one species may cause problems but lack the genetic trait that makes it resistant to antiquated drugs if sufficient time has passed since any related bacteria populations would have been exposed to it. "Retroactive" evolution has to be at least a theoretical reality. It's probably safe to say that perhaps given a different environment and enough time birds might actually "turn back" into dinosaurs, but it's going to take someone a lot more knowledgeable than I am to figure out if it's actually really possible and what conditions would have to exist for that to happen. I mean, ostriches are pretty big for birds, right?

Missed this one...sorry. I'm short on time these days...

No, I've not perused the "millions" of pages. Have YOU perused the millions of pages? I'm guessing that the answer is no, but if you have, then good for you. The problem is that if you haven't--or even if you have--am I just supposed to accept that the data means what you say it means? How am I supposed to know the truth of it? Just take your word for it?

but even a thousand replicablee pages are worth more than millions of pages with no conection to reality.

amount means little substance does.

Certainly not millions but many thousands in an almost lifelong interest. Don't take my word for it, just do the investigations yourself. Oodain is also correct above

If you don't accept the experts' authority then do your own research or withold judgement instead of dismissing claims you don't agree with or don't fully understand. Admitting ignorance isn't cause for shame.

That's not evolution, that's adaption. The kind of evolution scientist use to describe our origins is that they say a pool of goo evolved into a creature, who in turn evolved over a period of time into another creature, and then another, and another until finally man arrived on the scene. Species doesn't just spontaneously evolve over a period of time into a brand new species. So how could this be achieved? Well the only way evolution would be feasible would be some form of cross-species breeding for survival purposes. However this presents a problem that theory cannot answer. The Bible, on the other hand, provides concrete language that makes it abundantly clear that man, beast, flying creatures, even plants and vegetation where all created "according to its kind". In other words canines can breed with other canines according to their kind but a dog cannot breed with a horse. An alligator can breed with other alligators of its kind but it cannot breed with a giraffe. Birds can breed with other birds of its kind but it cannot breed with a snake. And supposed "evolutionary" mutations in any living creature always results in negative outcomes, not the formation of a brand new species. This is why there's no fossil proof showing cross-bred species. Scientist who claim a dinosaur is a proto-species of bird is trying to find connections where none exist.

In the Bible dinosaurs served their purpose in maintaining population control for both dinosaurs (meat eaters) and plant life (leaf eaters) so that the planet wouldn't get overwhelmed in either extremes. Genesis 1:20-23 states

And God went on to say: “Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.” And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good. With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters in the sea basins, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fifth day."

In other words once dinosaurs served their purpose their dominance on the planet was collectively brought to an end. Obviously Jehovah knew such creatures could not coexist with man; at least not the paradise to come and Jehovah's grand purpose for humans.

Even King David was inspired by God to penned the words of this song, which describes DNA:

I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.
Your works are wonderful,
As my soul is very well aware.
My bones were not hidden from you
When I was made in secret,
When I was woven in the lowest parts of the earth.
Your eyes saw even the embryo of me,
And in your book all its parts were down in writing,
As regards the days when they were formed
And there was not yet one among them.
(Psalm 139:14-16)

How could Moses know about "according to their kind" (the laws and boundaries that govern procreation) and David know about "in your book all its parts were down in writing" (DNA) thousands of years before humans knew about this? They did not. The knowledge was divinely gifted to them by the one who created us, Jehovah God.

So which is more believable? That a powerful almighty God created everything "according to its kind" or creatures cross-breed to survive and in doing so created mutations which eventually lead to the most complex of species on this planet: man.

No, this is absolutely false and the correct definition is easily available if you had any intention of educating yourself on the subject.



The first has nothing to back it up and the second is a misrepresentation. Both are inferior to the current theory of evolution, judged by supporting evidence.

Wrong. Cross species breeding doesn't work unless they are close relatives, and even then the result is almost always sterile. The key is that mutation and inherent traits that may be advantageous win the day. "Spontaneously evolving over a period of time" is a contradictory statement as spontaneity implies that it happens suddenly. It does not. It happens over a very long time, and in the intermediary it is not a "brand new species" but the same species with gradually different features that eventually are so different that it has to be classified differently. The view you are espousing is not informed and is making assumptions about how species evolve. We're not talking about freaking Pokemon here




This argument fails for a number of reasons, one of which is your idea that species cross-breeding is the only path to evolution. You're only illustrating your vast ignorance on this subject





Okay there



Neither is believable because the first is unprovable and the second is absolutely, blatantly wrong.