razor said:

A planet supports it's own molecular structure...If Jupiter is high winds of gases, that planet supports it's design.

If Saturns rings are frozen fragments, that was the rings design.

Any one thing can be looked at in comparison to another and say that it is less of a higher concept than something else, however all things existing and responding to one another as this thing or that thing is an observable relationship.

My point is, if your reference point is to point to one thing and try to eliminate it as reasonable clarification, you have not stood at all points simultaneously.

Dsoul said:

I love this line..."To say there is not a God, is as unlikely as a Tornado whipping through a junk yard and putting together an F-16 airplane. '

Forgive me, but I don't really understand what you are saying here. I;m not clear how this refutes, for example, my point about the human eye?

razor said:

Ours is not to reason why... rightfully when bible basher Bush choked on a pretzel that should put ID nonsense to bed. Using the same passage for eating and breathing is not very intelligent at all, let alone in god's chosen image divinities.

Wonder which "arguments" Prince uses for ID in his library of creationism?

Dsoul said:

Prince: "to say there is not a god is an unlikely as one man whipping through a sound studio filled with instuments and putting together musical masterpieces on his own.....oh"

Very rare unreleased concert outtake from circa 1984:

Prince: "Do you have a man? is he fine? But does your man have an ass like mine?!...well technicaly, yes he does, since all men are designed in the image of god and the ass is one example of this design. Ergo, I have answered my own question: yes, your man does have an ass like mine....uh...sorry....kick drum!"

The fact that if the Earth was tilted one degree closer to the sun, we would burn, or one degree further away, we as a race would freeze.

Miracles have a Father.

Tame said:

What if someone called that miracle a mere coincidence?

I believe in God but not the creationist theory. the thing I don't get is why Christian radicals and Scientists constantly fight this subject. In my head it is all down to the concept of "Time". Just because God didnt create te world in 6 days does not mean it doesnt have a design or time frame. Creatures on earth live for different lengths of time and have different concepts of how this feels-to a fly being thwacked the movemnet is slow and so they can escape etc
Time is relative and I think this is the cause or route of this conflict

I do believe in Creation
What I am saying is that on the whole people don't believe in the 6 days of creation and when you don't people take it to the other extreme and dismiss everything related to it. God created the world but I think he had a bit more time to play with than 6 days. evolution does not contradict creation in my view-just coz one can see a brush stroke in a painting does not stop it being a painting-it merely means you can see the detail

jcurley said:

Evolution does contradict the creation story as told in genesis though. THe world is not less thn 6000 years old. Humans did not simply appear from no-where. There was no flood that covered the entire earth. As for adapting the 6 days to be more time, that's just trying to have your cake and eat it. One minute we are told the bible is the truth, but when the bible is proved errant, we are told to not tkae it literally...

razor said:

Nope-faith has had interpretations for 2000 years based on the Bible-not at any given point has any group been able to draw a line in the sand and go-thats the Bible-thats the truth. The Bible has been reedited (King james bible etc) because of interpretation of the time-be that due to debating Greek meanings or the poitics of the Reformation etc A methodist has nothing Biblically in common with a Jehovahs witness but both swear this is the truth

The Bible has been reedited (King james bible etc) because of interpretation of the time-be that due to debating Greek meanings or the poitics of the Reformation etc A methodist has nothing Biblically in common with a Jehovahs witness but both swear this is the truth

And there we have it folks, it was re-edited, by a man, who happened to be ruler.

I mean, surely you theists can see how ridiculous that is? How people can state that the bible it is an accurate commentary on events that happened a long time ago, in a land far far away. When the texts don't even line up with each other, let alone completely contradict other faiths which are supposedly equally true?

I love the quote "as a theist when you realize why you reject all other faiths in preference for yours, you'll hopefully understand why I as an athiest reject all faiths.....I just reject one more than you"

Snap said:

Poor baby, you give me the awful impression that you've never read any of the arguments against your position, ever. Not sure where you got the "many scientists believe that science proves nothing but "design" by a Designer" line - wish you could tell me just one - but I doubt that.

However, you're refering to one of Aquinas' proofs which assumes that God himself is immune from regress (a really old 'argument' from Creationst literature). Ask yourself this, though, if you believe in a supreme designer, why not ask who designed God too?

If you're open to that question, then you've got all your work left ahead of you.

pald1 said:

Pald1, Pald1, Pald1. Tut. Tut. Tut.

Hello Pad1. How are you? You sound like you read a lot. Are you a philosopher, because the old Creationist Literature is not the first book I see at a local book store?

Did you start this thread for a creationism vs evolution debate? lol.

Why does evolution have to contradict creationism? In fact, the argument is not essentially creationism vs evolution, it is God vs Science. That is the question.

If I was to ask you, do you believe in God? You will (with 90% chance) say, “No”. Therefore, if you believed in God, and I asked you, do you believe in Evolution, you would say (with 90% chance), “No”. Though the chances are skewed, as I only had a limited number of people to ask about this. Therefore, I believe the question is truly about, whether you believe in God but that is only my humble opinion.

I haven’t read the whole thread, in fact, I got to a point where I would like to join in from where I got up to. So if what I am saying has been pointed out, then I truly apologise.

I will state facts, and what these facts can conclude. I will try to be unbiased in my arguments, and then, I will relate the question of THE TRUTH, to you, and what that means to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Hopefully, the research will pay off, and this will not be a rant at any one of the posts on here.

There are 7 parts to talk about. Hopefully, you will find these cases interesting.

Part 1 of 7
*****PHILOSPHY*****
- Last year I had the privilege of dropping in on a philosophy seminar on the basis of logic. Philosophy that logic can be defined by parameters; rules without exemption. They used two different philosophers as a basis of the argument, one being Aristotle and the other escapes me, but he was not very good, as there were too many flaws in his theory of logic.

- The argument was that though Aristotle’s arguments were faultless, they were based on mathematical arguments. Mathematical arguments are an invention of mankind, unlike numeracy, which is essential to mankind and can be found in every community. Therefore, any summary of science, is measured by an invention of mankind, and logic would have it, he who creates, was created, and the created has a creator.

- THE ARGUMENT POSED BY THE 2ND PHILOSOPHER (which was one of his more flawless arguments) is that if “it cannot be seen, touched or measured, it simply does not exist,” and Aristotle agrees here with him. Natural selection and evolution would suggest the idea that one specie forming ever so slowly into a new adapted specie of the same kind, would have not just genetic differences, but phenotypic ones.

That problem is found within archaeological artefacts, where they do show a specie at phenotype A and then B in chronological order, but that leap is usually too big a leap, that any transition period is not found.

What do I mean by leap? Yes, you may argue that in fact this transition period is based on a freak genetic mutation, which yes can happen. There are people walking around with four limbs, and two heads, so that is not undeniably impossible (and happens all the time with singe-celled organisms, let alone “living” viruses such as HIV which mutates even within its hosts), but the fact is, in these cases, only a few are found. In fact, if evolution was solidly built on the premise of adaptation from small but continuous genetic changes, and the fact that the new adapted species would exist and thus overawe their parent specie, then the two would at some point in archaeological history, coexist.

Take for example, the hominid phylogeny. Lets start with the “homo erectus” species. They, up until 15,000 years ago seemed to exist. However, “homo neanderthalensis” is the closest to homosapians in time, yet, according to many references, they inhabited Asia, Europe, and just about migrated to the geographical location of Israel. If therefore, there was some coexistence, and the Out of Africa theory was indeed correct, then Africa would be the sub-melting pot for the coexistence of both “homo neanderthalensis” and homosapians. This breaks the entire chain of human evolution, and thus, without that one piece of evidence uniting both these species, evolution of humans cannot stand as fact. This can only be contradicted by the continuity theory that homosapians did not come out of Africa, and instead, these changes occurred earth wide. However, this is (if I understand the theory correctly), flawed, as with the few numbers of these species that existed (as we can see that population explosion to due modern living today), it is therefore based on an extremely low probability, mathematically, that this could occur, regardless of whether simulatenously, or chronologically or not.

However, unlike many of the transitional changes that man has theoretically come from, none have coexisted, at least to my knowledge. And thus, if science is based on laws of logic and mathematics, then I struggle to understand how the idea of evolution (as far as humans are concerned) could possible stand, if it were to be put in a court of law, tried and tested. This does not mean creationism is to be exempt, for creationism too will be tried and tested.

- The argument of speciation. If therefore, evolution was in any shape or form, a theory that can do outdo all theories, in which creation is held up as more of a mythical creation, then speciation would be the one argument that would out do all others. In fact, the island that was discovered by scientists to have new species, never seen before should be an example of speciation. For instance, according to independent.co.uk,

“Scientists also found more than 20 new species of frogs, four new butterflies, five new species of palm and many other plants yet to be classified, including what may be the world's largest rhododendron flower. Botanists on the team said many plants were completely unlike anything they had encountered before.
Nowhere mentioned, in the billions of years of earth’s history, a totally new specie of mammal exists, never seen before, either in life or in fossilised form. That is worrying considering theory states speciation is a big argument for evolution.

Yes, these fossils existed. Yes, these creatures existed. However, that does not prove their connection in Natural Selection, Evolution or otherwise to humans. That is most likely why Evolution is still only a Theory.


Pad1. I find this very interesting. I might even get to Prince and the Truth. Lol.
The other parts are not this long.

Pad1.

Do not be offended. If you create a debate, it means there is room for fault. In The Truth, there is no room for fault, as truth is faultless.

As for The Truth, someone has already answered it already.

Reading Richard Dawkins', John Maynard Smith or Charles Darwin himself cannot prove the theory into fact. I'm guessing you like to read, so may I suggest De natura deorum by Cicero, Aristotle's laws of logic and open your mind. I have, and frankly, it makes no logical sense. In fact, in my humble opinion, Richard Dawkins' study of the Blind Watchmaker only suggests that God may have a maker, or nobody has a maker. Either or either.
[Edited 9/30/08 15:17pm]

You keep believing, I'll keep evolving

statequest said:

A good example of where you completely miss the point is your feeling that scientists attempt to prove theory into fact (although, as I assume you believe in an invisible means of support and the supernatural, why facts are suddenly so important to you, I just don't know). Anyway, scientist's doubt - that's what drives them. As EL Doctorow once put it "doubt is a virtue" not certainty. Doubt is what pushes scientists to learn more, to 'open your mind' as you say. I'm just naturally suspicious of those who claim to know how we got here, and have a firm unshaking belief in this view, I find it both close-minded and dangerous. As I say, fear of death is a powerful thing. As a JW, If you're really honest with yourself, you'd admit to this feeling. A supreme being is there to comfort you and tell you it will all be ok and there is more to life than this. These are the thoughts of a child.

Because even with the idea of evolving, if there is a design, there is a designer.

Carman (The Preacher) has a great song called, "There is a God." At the opening the song list so many scientific reasons for the unbeliever, you should listen to it.

At some point, when life is so miraculous, you have no other choice but to believe that life was created.

The workings of the human eye.
A butterfly that wraps itself in a silken cacoon, completely liquifies, and then flies in one life span.
The fact that if the Earth was tilted one degree closer to the sun, we would burn, or one degree further away, we as a race would freeze.

Miracles have a Father.

pald1 said:

Hello pad1. How are you again? Please do not misconstrue my intentions. I did not mean to offend you (if I have, as I do not want to assume about you). I believe that you are very intelligent, and there are no buts about it. However (which, I know, is another "but"), I believe with clarification, you may, if not agree, come to an understanding of where I am situated on your question about "Intelligent Design". I have not met the argument you have raised for the first time, so I feel that I have a good understanding of the main principles, and where you are coming from, so correct me if I mistaken.

My basis for belief in fact has never been based on anything, solely than evidence. I have no intention on answering from any religious point of view, whether about JWs, or about any other religion, and for each of those who stand by their beliefs, I too ask them to find proof in their arguments, that these arguments are irrefutable, and have always done so. They too have presented very good arguments, but it is not for me to tak it on face value, as neither have you, and by investigating these principles, I am making an active gesture to qualify their arguments as either fact or fiction.

I do not know whether you yourself are a scientist, theorist, or someone with a firm passion for this area of study, but as scientists, we must come to "certainty without doubt, and truth without error", we must be able to prove or disprove our theories. The first thing I do when undertaking any scientific study, as do most scientists and/or researchers, is I create a hypothesis. Without using my own definition, a hypothesis is a "guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence", or "a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations". Before you analyze "incomplete evidence" it is of my humble opinion based on holes I have found in the facts that I believe must be filled for evolution to no longer just be a theory. Therefore, if a hypothesis is a theory, all I can do to make my hypothesis a fact, is to prove or disprove this hypothesis. Naturally, this is what I meant by proof.

As for doubt, yes in deed, doubt drives the need to find proof. As I have read the arguments for evolution, but scientifically feel there are flaws, and there is no evidence to disprove these flaws, flaws which I think undermines the premise of evolution, technically, regardless of popular or conventional opinion, and therefore, I have not reached reason without doubt, and truth without error, and I have not proven or unproven the hypothesis. Yes. One could argue that science is merely a world of new ideas which are all, theories which are just waiting to be further reinforced by additional evidence or disproved, as such is the case in the field of medical and biomedical sciences. For example, after years of studying diseases, from genetic to paristological, the addition of new T-cells helps to color in the blanks as to Type 1 or 2 T cells, such as Type 17 and the regulatory T cells. It is all quite fascinating, but yet again, this is my humble opinion.

How you speak of evolution with a passion, is how I feel about immunology, but in no case would I be able to justify any reason to believe that the new understandings we have are complete fact, as there are, still with certain subjects of every field, elements of doubt, large and small, all needed to be removed for any topic, subject, matter, or hypothesis to remain fact.

However, the arguments of speciation, adaptation, genetic drift, gene pools will be addressed within further parts. There is no doubt for these things to occur, but the extent of which they occur, and their limitations are essential I believe in understanding the theory of evolution. I especially agree with one writer, that as a population increases, so does its genetic drift, and thus phenotypic drift, and so on. And yes, Prince will come, unless you would like otherwise.

I know this diverted from your topic, but it is a very good one. I have the up most respect for you and your post, as I know you have a firm understanding of the principles of the theory of evolution. If I have read wrong, the evidence presented about the theory, then yes, I am at fault, but if, as instinctively, and by learned instruction, in search for truth, I have found fault.


"If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics."
- Roger Bacon