How can evolution be responsible for a universe of complexity?

[So]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: ducci
Well, this thread took a (completely expected) turn for the worse.

To summarize for those who don't wish to read every post-
-OP comes in as a seemingly inquisitive religious person, asking for further explanation as to why evolution is the scientific standard.
-People here give very compelling, civil, and factual (and some not) explanations and suggest further reading on the subject from more academic sources.
-OP generally ignores these and cites the bible.
-"The bible is wrong and here is why" posts begin
-Religious people enter along with the OP and cite pseudoscience
-Thread turns into a giant mess

Is there a website that has templates for these kind of topics that I'm not aware of, because they all constantly end up becoming the exact same thing.

I tried to acknowledge most of the replies in this thread as best as I could, but with so many posts its not always possible. However if you noticed I did agree that evolution is a factor in life adjusting and acclimating itself to different environments. As I mentioned in several places before, the point of evolution I don't agree with is the notion of one species transforming or evolving into another species. From what I learned from other posters this process is called macro-evolution (if I understood it correctly) and of this there was no solid evidence to suppport. However if there was evidence of this type, please point it out to me and I will look it over and respond.

I'll say it to you again. There is no such thing as "macro" or "micro" evolution. There is just evolution. The distinction was made up by biblical literalist apologists who wanted to find a way to pretend that the fact of evolution was not indeed a fact.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: ducci
Hmm, you must be using a different internet.

VIPs only 🙂

 

[randay]

what part of intelligent design does my appendix come from? maybe the guy who designed it was retarded? or he had a really bad hangover that day?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: randay
what part of intelligent design does my appendix come from? maybe the guy who designed it was retarded? or he had a really bad hangover that day?

What kind of designer runs a sewer line through a recreational area?

 

[jonks]

"If this is the work of a Supreme Being, I am not impressed." George Carlin, RIP

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: randay
what part of intelligent design does my appendix come from? maybe the guy who designed it was retarded? or he had a really bad hangover that day?

What kind of designer runs a sewer line through a recreational area?

The kind that works for the city and county? what else do you do with overfilled land fills... make them into parks!

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: randay
what part of intelligent design does my appendix come from? maybe the guy who designed it was retarded? or he had a really bad hangover that day?

What kind of designer runs a sewer line through a recreational area?

:thumbsup::laugh:

+

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: randay
what part of intelligent design does my appendix come from? maybe the guy who designed it was retarded? or he had a really bad hangover that day?

What kind of designer runs a sewer line through a recreational area?

The kind that works for the city and county? what else do you do with overfilled land fills... make them into parks!

He meant the penis. It's a joke. I didn't get it either, I had to look it up.

"God must have been a civil engineer..."

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: sdifox

See bolded sentence.

Blood Transfusion could have saved quite a few lives if some religious sect did not deem it evil.

Dinosaurs are still not acknowledged by the church.

STD could be largely prevented by condoms. Big no no with the Catholic Church.

HPV Vaccine is a no go with the Catholic Church.

on a lighter side of things, Bill Hicks on Dinasaurs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrZcztxRquo

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Blood transfusion is still not allowed for Jehovah's Witnesses. They CAN, however, receive organ transplants 😕

I can't speak for what Catholics or other religious organizations believe but as a Jehovah's Witness we simply try to follow the bible's counsel on the issue of blood.

Acts 15:19-20 - Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. . .

However just because Jehovah's Witnesses don't take blood transfusions does'nt mean that we don't seek alternative medical procedures. For example in place of a blood transfusion its becoming a growing practice for patients (not just JWs) to pursue treatments such as blood expanders and other similar procedures. Also given the situation with the history of less than adequate blood screening processes at times many people other than Jehovah's Witnesses are moving away from using blood transfusions.

http://www.noblood.org/

Wait, you are a Jehovah's Witness? Don't you get shunned for posting on here? Or are you just too lazy to go out and rescue people and decided to do it in the comfort of your bedroom through online forums?

I've never heard anything about being shunned for having a discussion online. As to the rescuing part 😀 I do go out from door to door and try and speak with people who are interested in the bible. It's not the easiest thing to do, but it is rewarding helping other people who have an interest in learning. Basically it's just adhering to the command at Matthew 28:19-20 - Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And, look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.

Not every religion takes this command in a literal sense, but as a christian (follower of Christ) JW's believe that this is what Christ intended his disciples to do.


Does this mean you eat halal meat or are you vegetarian period?

I don't even know what halal meat is and I'm definitely not a vegetarian although I did try it once. There are'nt any special dietary requirements to be a Jehovah's Witness outside of abstaining from blood in any form.


How is it not idolising to build Kingdom Halls?

I'm assuming when you say idolising you're referring to the practice of worshipping an image or representation of God which is forbidden in the bible. However a Kingdom Hall is simply a building used for worship, similar to a mosque, church, temple, synagogue, etc..

How come you guys didn't exist before Charles Taze Russell? I mean, if you are the only true followers, one would think you would exist from the Diluge times. Yet no mention of Kindom Halls anywhere, no account of YW's place in the world anywhere.

That's a good question which involves knowing a bit of history. I'll try to explain it without going into a lengthy discussion. But basically when Christ arrived in the first century he changed things up a bit in the sense that the Israelites were no longer God's only favored people or nation. In the Old Testament portion of the bible the Israelites had a special contract (or covenant with God) that made them exclusively his people. However due to the Israelites constant sins and repeated violation of their covenant, when Christ came to Earth that covenant was no longer valid. Jesus then instituted a new covenant which allowed any person regardless of race or nationality to have a relationship with God similar to what the Israelites had. This was the birth of christanity as it was Jesus who introduced these changes and he set the standard for others to follow. Some years after Jesus died the original congregations during that time became infected with various pagan teachings and true christianity was scarce. Then there was a period of time when owning or discussing the bible in private was considered illegal and this of course had far reaching effects on what the general population know or belived about God and Christ. C T Russell was one of the first people in modern history to make a genuine attempt to adhere strictly to the bible's counsel and cast off some of the pagan practices that became associated with christianity. Initially Russell and his congregation referred to themselves as simply bible students, but in time they took on the name of Jehovah's Witnesses based on the scripture text at Isaiah 43:10 (You are my witnesses,? is the utterance of Jehovah, ?even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none). Hopefully that was'nt to drawn out but it provides a brief background of how Jehovah's Witnesses come to use that name.

And you refute Trinity, but accept most of the Old Testament? I believe that is called bear false witness.

Jehovah's Witnesses accept the entire bible, not just parts of it. However there are portions of the Old Testament that were done away with when Christ instituted the new covenant. For example we don't practice animal sacrifice, wearing blue fringes on our clothing, stoning murderers, etc.. I think this is why some people have problems with the bible, they think that parts of the Old Testament are still being observed down to the letter. In regards to your comment about the Trinity, there are quite a few scriptures that illustrate why the Trinity worship is not an accurate bible truth. If you like I can show you some verses if you wanted to research for yourself.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Arkitech

I tried to acknowledge most of the replies in this thread as best as I could, but with so many posts its not always possible. However if you noticed I did agree that evolution is a factor in life adjusting and acclimating itself to different environments. As I mentioned in several places before, the point of evolution I don't agree with is the notion of one species transforming or evolving into another species. From what I learned from other posters this process is called macro-evolution (if I understood it correctly) and of this there was no solid evidence to suppport. However if there was evidence of this type, please point it out to me and I will look it over and respond.

I'll say it to you again. There is no such thing as "macro" or "micro" evolution. There is just evolution. The distinction was made up by biblical literalist apologists who wanted to find a way to pretend that the fact of evolution was not indeed a fact.

Someone in a previous thread put it very eloquently:

Saying you believe in micro-evolution but disbelieve macro-evolution is like saying you believe in meters, but you don't believe in kilometers because you can't see that far.

 

[randay]

ah i see now, a jehovas witness. typical. get a life and stop trying to force your beliefs on others, especially when they dont want to hear it.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: randay
what part of intelligent design does my appendix come from? maybe the guy who designed it was retarded? or he had a really bad hangover that day?

The appendix appears to serve a purpose, but it's not known what that purpose is for certain. One modern theory is that it is used to store beneficial bacteria that gets removed during stuff like diarrhea, and as such may be of significant importance in 3rd world nations.

 

[thecrecarc]

Well, this thread has deteriorated. Lock it please.


Also, since your a Jehovah's witness which obviously had no intent of changing his belief when making this thread, I will file you under the "troll" category.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: randay
what part of intelligent design does my appendix come from? maybe the guy who designed it was retarded? or he had a really bad hangover that day?

What kind of designer runs a sewer line through a recreational area?

lol

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: randay
ah i see now, a jehovas witness. typical. get a life and stop trying to force your beliefs on others, especially when they dont want to hear it.

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
Well, this thread has deteriorated. Lock it please.


Also, since your a Jehovah's witness which obviously had no intent of changing his belief when making this thread, I will file you under the "troll" category.

Wow, why the hostility? I did'nt attack anyone in this thread or make any inflammatory remarks. I just wanted to discuss a difference of opinions. Furthermore I actually came away from this topic with some new information and knowledge which I stated previously. I'm sorry that you feel I attempted to force my beliefs on someone, however I do have a right to defend what I believe in just as those who are pro evolution have done in this thread.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Also, since your a Jehovah's witness which obviously had no intent of changing his belief when making this thread, I will file you under the "troll" category.

I've never met a Jehovah's witness that was honestly curious about the reality outside of their little "Watchtower" pamphlets. so yeah, Troll to the 3rd degree.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Also, since your a Jehovah's witness which obviously had no intent of changing his belief when making this thread, I will file you under the "troll" category.

I've never met a Jehovah's witness that was honestly curious about the reality outside of their little "Watchtower" pamphlets. so yeah, Troll to the 3rd degree.

😕

Does anyone actually read what I post? I clearly admitted several times that I learned somethings about evolution that I did'nt know before. Oh well, this discussion was good while it lasted.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: Chronoshock

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: sao123
apparently someone doesnt pay attention to their archeology... there is more supporting evidence for the stories of the old testament, than there is evidence supporting evolution.

I'm calling MASSIVE BS on that one. Are you claiming that the writings of the people who started the religion are fact? You've got to be kidding.

There is an overwealming amount of secular archaeological which proves the writings of the old testament are true...
Just to name a few...

The "mythical" Hittites...
Egyptian Bricks wthout Straw...
Jericho...
the Damascus monument commemorating victory over the king of Israel & the house of david.
Lachish Ostraca fragments corroborating the historicity of the Babylonian captivity.
Joseph shaving controversy...
Assyrian Kings Libraries corroborate all 39 kings of ancient israel mentioned in the bible.
Thutmose IV was the successor to Amenhotep (Amenophis) II though he was not the heir or firstborn, corroborates the Egyption firstborn destruction curse.

these are just a few of the well known ones... but there are tens of thousands of examples of modern archaeology which agree with the stories of the bibles old testament.

Some of the Bible is based on actual places, people, and events. That does not mean that everything in it is fact.

Precisely, no one is arguing about the history of human civilization, we are arguing about an omnipotent entity. None of what sao mentioned confirms the presence of god or contradicts current scientific knowledge.
The bible says the earth is only 6000 years old. It is a scientific fact that it is older. The bible is not to be taken literally. A lot of the language is archaic/poetic and can be interpreted in many different ways.

That's actually a misconception many people have about the bible, the Earth is much older than 6000 years. Its the account of human history that is referenced at being about 6000 years old.

It appears that the story is evolving.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: So


I hate to tell you this, but people have known that the earth was a sphere since at least 600BC, and smart mariners probably knew long before that.

That said, science's changing theories are a STRENGTH, not a weakness. There are plenty of religious viewpoints that stay fixed in spite of the obviously contradictory facts of reality. Evolution is the PERFECT example of this.

I don't doubt that some people were aware of that fact since that 600BC time period. But like I mentioned before it was a widely held belief for many years that the world was flat which the science at that time upheld. As far as science changing its theories I'm not mentioning that in a critical way, I'm just pointing out that at times science has been wrong about what was believed to be a fact until new evidence suggested otherwise.

Can you point out some examples of religious viewpoints that are fixed despite scientific claims otherwise? No need to mention evolution again since I've been addressing that point all throughout this thread.

Dinosaurs. Blood Transfusion. STD. HPV vaccine.

Sorry I need a little clarification on those subjects. Exactly how do they disprove the bible?

Using the same methods to prove it - which isn't saying much.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: Chronoshock

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: sao123
apparently someone doesnt pay attention to their archeology... there is more supporting evidence for the stories of the old testament, than there is evidence supporting evolution.

I'm calling MASSIVE BS on that one. Are you claiming that the writings of the people who started the religion are fact? You've got to be kidding.

There is an overwealming amount of secular archaeological which proves the writings of the old testament are true...
Just to name a few...

The "mythical" Hittites...
Egyptian Bricks wthout Straw...
Jericho...
the Damascus monument commemorating victory over the king of Israel & the house of david.
Lachish Ostraca fragments corroborating the historicity of the Babylonian captivity.
Joseph shaving controversy...
Assyrian Kings Libraries corroborate all 39 kings of ancient israel mentioned in the bible.
Thutmose IV was the successor to Amenhotep (Amenophis) II though he was not the heir or firstborn, corroborates the Egyption firstborn destruction curse.

these are just a few of the well known ones... but there are tens of thousands of examples of modern archaeology which agree with the stories of the bibles old testament.

Some of the Bible is based on actual places, people, and events. That does not mean that everything in it is fact.

Precisely, no one is arguing about the history of human civilization, we are arguing about an omnipotent entity. None of what sao mentioned confirms the presence of god or contradicts current scientific knowledge.
The bible says the earth is only 6000 years old. It is a scientific fact that it is older. The bible is not to be taken literally. A lot of the language is archaic/poetic and can be interpreted in many different ways.

That's actually a misconception many people have about the bible, the Earth is much older than 6000 years. Its the account of human history that is referenced at being about 6000 years old.

It appears that the story is evolving.

:laugh:

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Also, since your a Jehovah's witness which obviously had no intent of changing his belief when making this thread, I will file you under the "troll" category.

I've never met a Jehovah's witness that was honestly curious about the reality outside of their little "Watchtower" pamphlets. so yeah, Troll to the 3rd degree.

😕

Does anyone actually read what I post? I clearly admitted several times that I learned somethings about evolution that I did'nt know before. Oh well, this discussion was good while it lasted.

You'll get better posts from a new thread. Fact. I could explain why but no matter, you will.

See the problem is like this, Religion has been around for a long time. For a long time it has convinced people that its story is true. Science has proved or explained much of what religion cannot. Yet, people still cling to religion. Science continues to expand and progress foward. Religion does not.

Religion is based on a truth claim. Whether that truth be accurate or not cannot be proved. Science makes no "truth" claim. Scientific models are models. For example how a wave propagates through space or how light has particle-wave duality. We don't know if that is exactly how it's done, but when using that model to predict an experiment, they work. They are used when they apply and they are thrown out when they do not. Science has never said that they will always apply or will always be true. Religion does.

But throughout history religious examples often contradict this. The popes of the roman catholic church: Many popes were corrupt etc. You can call that religion corrupted, but your religion is no different from an overall perspective. No different. You have differen't beliefs, and? All other religions have beliefs too. And what about religions that did not exist until recently? The divisions which caused the split from the catholic church. The Anglican church, protestantism, etc. Religion is inconsistent. It cannot answer the questions posed to it: what happens to people never offered religion, what happens to those who believed a different religion before the religion you believe was around. I'm using your religion as some random religion.

I'm sure you can supply some answer. But it always looks like religion is grasping at straws. People of the past believed a day to be y'know a day, not millions/billions of years. Well, I guess the believed the wrong thing, but it's all okay so long as you "believe". This type of irrationality just does not bode well when examined.

There is no logic in saying that you believe in micro-evolution and not macro-evolution. Both these terms are misnomers to be exact. It's just evolution. You purport that science has not adequately explained evolution to you how species can evolve? If you don't deny the logical steps and don't deny the logical experiments, then how exactly can you logically deny evolution? You really can't.

pls answer the above, you can ignore the rest if you really want, just my thoughts.

 

[sdifox]

I don't even know what halal meat is and I'm definitely not a vegetarian although I did try it once. There are'nt any special dietary requirements to be a Jehovah's Witness outside of abstaining from blood in any form.


Newsflash, all meats have blood in them. Halal meat drains the blood, not 100% mind you, but close to it. Similar to Kosher meat. If you are supposed to abstain from blood in any form, you should not be eating meat.



I'm assuming when you say idolising you're referring to the practice of worshipping an image or representation of God which is forbidden in the bible. However a Kingdom Hall is simply a building used for worship, similar to a mosque, church, temple, synagogue, etc..


I consider all forms of building in God's name idolising. God can hear you from anywhere. Why the building? Isn't the money better spent helping the poor or spreading his word?


That's a good question which involves knowing a bit of history. I'll try to explain it without going into a lengthy discussion. But basically when Christ arrived in the first century he changed things up a bit in the sense that the Israelites were no longer God's only favored people or nation. In the Old Testament portion of the bible the Israelites had a special contract (or covenant with God) that made them exclusively his people. However due to the Israelites constant sins and repeated violation of their covenant, when Christ came to Earth that covenant was no longer valid. Jesus then instituted a new covenant which allowed any person regardless of race or nationality to have a relationship with God similar to what the Israelites had. This was the birth of christanity as it was Jesus who introduced these changes and he set the standard for others to follow. Some years after Jesus died the original congregations during that time became infected with various pagan teachings and true christianity was scarce. Then there was a period of time when owning or discussing the bible in private was considered illegal and this of course had far reaching effects on what the general population know or belived about God and Christ. C T Russell was one of the first people in modern history to make a genuine attempt to adhere strictly to the bible's counsel and cast off some of the pagan practices that became associated with christianity. Initially Russell and his congregation referred to themselves as simply bible students, but in time they took on the name of Jehovah's Witnesses based on the scripture text at Isaiah 43:10 (You are my witnesses,? is the utterance of Jehovah, ?even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none). Hopefully that was'nt to drawn out but it provides a brief background of how Jehovah's Witnesses come to use that name.







Jehovah's Witnesses accept the entire bible, not just parts of it. However there are portions of the Old Testament that were done away with when Christ instituted the new covenant. For example we don't practice animal sacrifice, wearing blue fringes on our clothing, stoning murderers, etc.. I think this is why some people have problems with the bible, they think that parts of the Old Testament are still being observed down to the letter. In regards to your comment about the Trinity, there are quite a few scriptures that illustrate why the Trinity worship is not an accurate bible truth. If you like I can show you some verses if you wanted to research for yourself.


So, just another version of "we are the true children of Israel"

 

[torpid]

Too much of bold.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: So

What kind of designer runs a sewer line through a recreational area?

That is just fantastic. :laugh:

KT

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: sao123

apparently someone doesnt pay attention to their archeology... there is more supporting evidence for the stories of the old testament, than there is evidence supporting evolution.

Apparently someone doesn't know the characteristics of historical fiction. Just because Gone With the Wind was set in the Civil War doesn't mean that Rhett and Scarlett were real people.

Oh, and I'd be very interested in this alleged "archaeological evidence" of the parting of the Red sea. If what you have in mind was claimed by Ron Wyatt, you should very carefully examine the source.