Wrong. Take a look at that:


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1154628458.jpg

Aurel

"The scientists". Sorry, but the scientists do have the data that does support the theory of evolution.
So how long ago did the creation occur and all life sprang forth on this planet and we walked with dinosuars?

the plant work failed because it was directed mutations. That isn't the way it works.

Drug resistant bacteria and viruses. Examples of improvement of a species.

You made a sweeping statement. I'm showing it wrong. Just admit that.

The creation did not happen all at once.
The time span is not known by man.

We never walked with dinos.

Point is, fossils show a species suddenly appearing and in some cases, ( dinos ) suddenly disappearing.

Your fossil display looks like a lot of the people I've seen:D

Speculation, theory, wild guesses taken as fact, ready to be changed at will. That is what's going on.

No proof...

Adam walked about 6,000 years ago in the now Middle East.
All the variation we see in "modern" man was available in his DNA.


Why can't man just admit he has very few answers.
Some he may never understand.


KT

Are you trying to say that the very earliest that humans ever appeared on the earth was 6,000 years ago? That’s absurd. Huge amounts of scientific research refute that. There are many different dating methods, and they all agree. There is nothing, not one thing, that would indicate that the earliest humans only appeared 6,000 years ago.

Who are you, who is so wise in the ways of science?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1154629661.jpg

The world is amazing.
Look at all the variety and harmony within nature. Very complex.
It seems that if life started in chaos, it would remain in chaos.

Calming down would go against the "laws of nature" right?

Why are all the life systems and cycles perfect right now?


The only purpose the evolution theory promotes is dishonor to God.


Gotta go...


KT

If you look at C14 datation of the skulls in the series I just showed you, you will see that the older ones are 4.4 millions years old. C14 is a valid method of determinig the age of objects over long periods of time. It is based on the variation of the C14/C12 isotopes ratio over time. So here you have before your eyes, human skulls dating 4.4 millions years. What do you make of it?

Aurel

Gotta go...just when it became interesting...

Aurel

Better run than to question one's beliefs?

You guys do realize you're arguing with a JW, right? You'll never change his mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_regarding_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses

You can also google Jehovah's Witness and cult and get some interesting reads...

Yeah, I knew that. They cut and run as soon as you use a Bible other than the King James version.


They have some good points from a Christian lifestyle POV, but like the Mormons, they are a recent cult.

In France, the JW are considered a sect, and do not have same recogntion are mainstream religions. No wonder why...

Aurel

Originally posted by trekkor
You’re talking about the entropy, right? Perhaps you have been taught by another creationist that entropy disproves evolution. This is not true. Check this out: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html You will see that the creationist who told you that was wrong. If you have a brain, you will abandon the false logic that you’ve been taught and adopt the truth.
Perfect? Ever gotten sick? Tell the guy with cancer that his “life system” is perfect. What about low back pain, diabetes, arthritis, or even just headaches. Tell all the species that have become extinct that they are perfect. What about the new species that have not yet arrived. Are they going to be perfect? How could you possibly believe that “all life systems and cycles” are perfect?
Perhaps you think that everything is exactly as god would have it, therefore it is perfect. If this is the case, why do things keep changing?

Since when does using your brain dishonor god? NOT using your brain is what would dishonor god, if there were a god. What makes you think your bible and evolution are mutually exclusive? Where does your bible say that evolution never happened? Why can’t you see the genesis story for what it is, a metaphor, and not for what it isn’t, a scientific explanation of events.

You’re already gone, long gone... :)

KT wrote:
The world is amazing.
Look at all the variety and harmony within nature. Very complex.
It seems that if life started in chaos, it would remain in chaos.
Calming down would go against the "laws of nature" right?
Why are all the life systems and cycles perfect right now?
The only purpose the evolution theory promotes is dishonor to God.
Gotta go...


Trekkor you use name calling all the time. Nonbeliever, Christian basher, etc., these are all name calling. So quit whining when someone calls you on blatant lies. You have already admitted to a lack of higher education, no science training, no nonreligious bias study of science; so what in hell makes you think you know this evidence to be false. Only one thing, it undermines your belief. Well welcome to the world of science, buddy. We question and try to disprove everything. That’s the way to real knowledge.

You might be used to a gentile” no thank you” when you come calling, spouting your religious lies. But I was raised to only state what I can back up; And to point out falsehoods. Religion is one lie after another. No evidence, no repeatable results (except lies, hatred, bigotry, violence); But no real verifiable facts.

I will always label my opinion, as just that, my opinion. This thread started out with the religious people trying to “prove” god with the most outlandish lies, falsehoods, partial quotes, circular arguments, and hiding behind the “you should respect my beliefs” crap (I wonder if we should respect Hitler’s and Mao’s beliefs too?). If you want to belief in myths and fairytales, fine. But don’t expect people to blindly accept such garbage. I respect those that seek real knowledge and work towards that goal. The rest are just leeches, preying upon man’s insecurities and ignorance. Just like con-artists and no better in my book.

Gotta go…. More religious based ignorance to stamp out.

The "Do you mean that man has only been on earth for 6,000 years?" argument is valid when many Biblical scholars believe that the Adam/Eve story represents (at best) the first "recorded" antics of man?.

I cannot understand the narrow minded views that would limit the method of life's journey from the onset to present day. Assuming an intelligence behind the process, who is to say what timetable or process was decided upon? Would the creator not be capable, for example, of starting the process and just seeing how it developed? And, if the creation process is so perfect, explain the existence of the appendix or other unnecessary parts? How any rational person can exclude one possibility for another without factual data is a foreign concept to me.

I have no problem believing that I cannot read the mind or purposes of a creator since, in comparison, I would be as ignorant as an ant is of a human's motives, probably even moreso.

I take no sides. Is there a creator? That is a personal matter. Is it possible there is a creator? Absolutely. Nothing is truly impossible in a universe of apparently contradictory events.

Written recorded history goes back at leat 10,000 years. Why would anyone consider Adam and Eve the first recorded event unless you are proposing the bible as fact 9which is completly unsupportable).

Gee RPKESQ, you'd be so much more effective if you just said "No". Going on a rampage every time someone you disagree with sticks their head up just doesn't do justice to your cause of logic and rationality. ( Imagine Spock having a tantrum. http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/rlwhore.gif) I would think that by now in human kind's evolution people like you would have mastered the art of civil discourse. Besides, if you varied your tone and epithets a bit, it would be far more interesting reading.

Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight (JW's versus science).

RPK..

I give up.....Perhaps I should have said "One area's recorded history". And, the difference between 6k years and 10k is not even a drop in the bucket of the age of the earth. Nit picking is not your (usual) style!!

John....It is indeed difficult to understand how continual protestation (not the branch of Xtanianity) about something unprovable is thought to change people's mind. They either "believe" or they do not.

A person's beliefs are a person's beliefs. They're entitled to theirs. I'm entitled to mine. Since a belief is something internal to a person (kind of like experiences or dreams), to berate someone over their beliefs just strikes me lacking any sort of empithy or compassion. Besides, in many cases it's just "flogging a dead horse" which exhibits traits of sadism, beastiality and necrophilia.

That being said, I don't have a problem with honest questioning with the aim of better understanding (in both directions). At the end of the day you have to be willing to walk away, otherwise we're no different from the radical immams in some parts of the world.

I guess the problem would be the person who believes the earth is flat and discounts all the data you provide to show him it is round. Yeah, it's his belief, but he certainly is not being honest with his rebuttals.

Sorry. I did not mean to be nitpicking. I may come across as too forceful at times, but my occupation doesn’t allow for unsubstantiated opinion. I need facts and accuracy in my line of work. Many people might live and operate in a different environment.

I was trying to outline the level of knowledge as it exists today. I find that statements are made with much outdated or erroneous information. Why is it bad form to correct these errors? Why do you take offense when the accuracy is questioned? I have little or no emotion in this discussion. Any reading into my comments that lead you to feel differently is incorrect. I try to speak and write clearly and accurately. Is that a fault now? I don't sugar coat my answers to outright lies. Is that required to be civil? What about honesty?

People who know me will be the first to tell you of my compassion and empathy. But I can achieve that without being required to accept inaccuracies. I learn new things every day. I have to reset my knowledge base every day. This is the way I live. Others are content to use old, outdated information, I am not. Why should I not correct these errors? Why should I acquiesce to ignorance?

If one wants to make a statement, why should one not expect to defend it in a logical manner? I am opposed to all of the emotional claptrap espoused as being relevant. Or that those opinions should be respected. Only informed, educated, experienced opinions have any validity. The rest are just like bellybuttons. Everyone has one, it’s nothing special.

I've never seen informed, educated or experienced bellybuttons. So I won't complain about your "outie" if you don't poke fun at my "innie". An opinion, no matter how mis-informed or confused is still that -- an opinion. As you said, they're like belly buttons.

Scientific results and claims within Physics, chemistry, and the physical sciences require rigerous proof. So we all gang up on the guy who joins the BBS claiming that putting holes in your airbox is worth 50 HP. Because the 50 HP just ain't there!

Claims in Archeology, History and stuff like that all need to at least withstand a reasonable level of supporting evidence, but since we can't revive the dead or relive specific moments in time (yet!), there will always be an element of doubt (or faith) involved. So it always helps to respect that. BTW, I have to admit that one of the most cantankerous (sp?) fields of study is that of Biblical Archeology (basically, normal archeological work done in the Lebanon/Israel/Sinai area -- with a mine-field of politics and agendas on all sides). It's a valid and respected field of scientific study, but rife with emotional bickering.

Claims in philosophy and theology need to at least stand up to scruitany of internal consistancy. That is because these fields of study depend on this consistancy to hold together. But once again, the application of these studies in the real world implies a jump from the mental to the physical reality -- and they are two different realms which do not map against well each other. As a result I would expect people to be respectful of those who do try to make that jump. Universities routinely award PhD's in these fields, so they are not complete bunk, and do justify serious study.

Those are my standards (aka: $0.02). You may or may not agree with them, but let's not take anyone's head off.
SmileWavy

Whoa fellows! What inaccurate statement did I refute that have set you guys off? Is someone claiming we don’t have 10,000 years or written history? Written during the time periods in question, not afterwards. If so, where is your evidence? If not, what is the problem?

The reason Biblical Archeology is full of emotion is because people are trying to "prove" their beliefs. Not because, standard scientific methods create the emotion diatribes.

You can get degrees in any conceivable subject matter. That does not mean they are all equally valid. A degree in theology from a religious school does not have the same standards applied to it as a degree in Anthropology concerning Comparative Religions from a non-religious university. If you equate those two as equal, then you have other agendas.

I said:
Only informed, educated, experienced opinions have any validity. The rest are just like bellybuttons. Everyone has one, it’s nothing special.

John replied:
I've never seen informed, educated or experienced bellybuttons.



Wow John, what kind of nonsense rebuttal is this? The next time you need a second medical opinion for a major surgery, let me know who you ask, OK?

You guys are still bringing emotion into something that does not require it to discuss civilly. What insulting thing have I said; other to call people on their lies or unsupported opinions offered as fact?

There is more to life than facts and science. Where does art fit in your narrow "informed, educated, expeienced opinions" world?

Sorry man, I agree with a lot of what you say, but imho you go way too far. I think that boiling the world down to the measurable is selling life, humanity, and the collective consciousness short.

Shakespeare had it dead on:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

The world is magic. The extent is up to the individual, but I'm speaking as a very well trained scientist. Lighten up, lose the formulas for a day and take a deep breathe...

OK. Maybe a weak attempt at levity. When it comes to first or second opinions for medical purposes, I'll judge the opionion based on person (and their reputation), as well as if it all makes sense to me. I may even have to take someone's opinion on faith (gasp!) if it is really unusual situation. A Christian Scientist (no comment) may chose to take a different set of opinions then me. We both will then have to live or die on our choices. But they are our opinions and decisions at the end of the day that prompted our particular outcome.

From a logic perspective, nothing is certain. The outcome of the surgery may turn out bad in spite of making the "right" decision, or may turn out good in spite of making the "wrong" decision. Nothing in life is that predictable or exact when you get down to it. It's not making the "right" or "wrong" decisions that matters in the end, but if you and I made a positive impact on the world in some fashion that will matter. Did we make someone's life a little bit better when we had the chance, or did we make someone's life a living hell when we had a chance. This is what will matter, wether you believe that will be judged or not.

Just my $0.02 again.

Anyone making such statements is a biased, closed minded person and will never convince anyone of anything.

Think about it. Someday you might mature enough to understand the real world.

John, who ever said differently? I seek the best opinions I can get when I cannot use facts. What does that have to do with requesting people to be accurate and label unsupported statements as opinions not statements of fact? That is my only issue. Want to voice an opinion? Have at it, but label it as opinion, not fact. Why should anyone be upset when their opinion is questioned or evidence is supplied that indicates that said opinion is unsupportable? And if one wants to continue to offer unsubstantiated opinion as fact, then that is a falsehood at best, if not an outright lie to serve their agenda. Why should I let that slide? To what purpose?

You wrote:
“From a logic perspective, nothing is certain.”

Sorry John, I do not get this relationship between certainty and logic. Logic does not predict certainty. Logic demands a level of supportable evidence to reach a particular conclusion.

Snowman really! Are you saying that there is no religious based ignorence in the world? If so, who is the closed minded one?

I don't support anyone's sacred cows. If you can't stand the application of logic, critical thinking and peer-review results directed towards your beliefs, than maybe your backing the wrong horse. That's not my fault.

I'm ALWAYS willing to change my beliefs. Just show me the verifiable, repeatable evidence. If you don't have that, then you only have unsupportable opinion; Common as dirt and not worth much.

My comment went TOTALLY over your head. Someday you will become wise enough to understand. I won't wait up for you to come up to speed.

Your comment stated I was closedminded because of my statement concerning religious based ignorance. Answer the question I posed. Your comment is as insulting as anything I've been accused of.

And please don't think that you have a lock on wisdom or even understand what it is.

I guess my point was a little muddled, but then what isn't on this thread? If we were arguing orbital mechanics, there would be one level of proof required. But the reality is that this particular thread teeters somewhere between the softer sciences (Archeology and such as that) and Theology (self evident). To be honest, it's hard to say if someone's answer is in one realm or another. So hopefully we can all be fairly patient and try to talk through the issues. That's the interesting part. While you may feel that someone's explanation falls short of fully scientific, they may be trying to make their point theologically (also an acceptable discipline). Even Harvard and Yale offer degrees in Theology.

At the end of the day, what we say on this thread will have little to no impact on creation, or the world as a whole. There are other things that we do in our life that will matter more. I'm all with you that JW's, Fundimentalists or some other religious group should stop bludgening people with their beliefs. If you or someone else don't want to convert, beating someone over the head with a particular view point isn't going to change their mind. The same applies to the athiest view. You may think that you're saving the world from religious intolerance or something, but if you have to beat the other person over the head with your point, or shove it in their faces, chances are you're not making it.

This is where I go back to the dead horse thing... :rolleyes:

I go to work and miss all the fun.:D


Call lies if you like, but evolution is UNPROVEN and carbon dating is unreliable.


Good to be back...

But at least admit that the beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses are significantly different than most mainstream Christian religions.

KT good to have you back!

your fun to debate with!

Of course, that's a given. :)

Remember my list...?

No other religion fits.


KT

Nostatic, when did I ever say you can't have art (I love and create art) or have an opinion or a belief? Never. I never said it, nor do I think it.

Let me state my position clearly. I do not accept as fact what cannot be peer reviewed, verified and tested. These are facts. Please do not expect me to accept unsupported claims or statements or opinion as fact. They just aren’t so.

I have opinions, beliefs and stories that I like a lot. But these are not facts. I love people, music, animals, travel, hiking and climbing, boating, machinery of all types, books of all types and knowledge. My life is as open as the universe in all its wonders. It is not narrow or limited. My interests are much broader than most of the people I've met all over the world. I try to model myself after a renaissance man. I try to learn about everything I run across in my life. How many people do you know who try to do that? Narrow and limited?; sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

I don't get the idea, that if you want to have "facts" verifiable, your life is somehow lesser for it. Can you expand on this line of reasoning?

Why do you put so much "faith" in your "peer review"?

We're all just men right?



KT

No, you just seem to dismiss anything that is not a "fact" according to your peer-reviewed architecture. I guess I see more shades of gray. To me, everything is not quite so clear-cut. I know from my experience in the lab that much of my molecular biology work was a mix of art and science.

My "box" of facts is kinda leaky I guess...

Nostatic,
I think our differences are imagined than real. My world is full of things that I cannot verify. I deal in every shade of gray there is. I often must make my best choice with insufficent facts. I have to then use every thing I can lay my hands on to try to make a decision.

But I don't call or accept as facts what cannot be tested and verified.

Why would anyone want to call the unverfied a "fact", unless they have a agenda to mislead.