Jehovah's Witnesses

[lauren-kate]

Ok so then according to your point of view we had to all of decended from two original apes then?

There would have been more than the two original apes. A population of 'apes' would have evolved from another species.

Ok so why dont we still evolve from the apes? No animals now evovle into any kind that is not their own do they??

There's no scientific evidence to prove man evolved from apes either, is there? That humans evolved from earlier humans, maybe, but there is no chronological link to apes.

I'll check my book.. I think it's something about hominids.. I'm conveniently studying evolution and it's evidence within rocks right at this moment

 

[ShanandBoc]

Ok so then according to your point of view we had to all of decended from two original apes then?

There would have been more than the two original apes. A population of 'apes' would have evolved from another species.

Ok so why dont we still evolve from the apes? No animals now evovle into any kind that is not their own do they??

All animals are still evolving. The time-scale means that most differences and changes are not noticeable though. Animals are dying out, other animals are more successful, and so are surviving. If we waited long enough, animals would evolve into a different kind of animal.

Animals are dying out due to extinction, from men hunting destrying their habitats etc.

There can be great variety among humans, cats , dogs for example but no so much that one living thing could chnage into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this.

Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life only comes from pre- existing life, and the parent organism and its offspring are of the same kind.

Breeding experiments also confirm this. Scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plant life indefinately by crossbreeding. They wanted to see that if in time they could develop new forms of life.

On call reports " Breeders find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further impreovement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed, this then seems to refute, rather than support evolution.

Pigs reman pigs, oak tress remain oak trees, generation after generation.

eveolution cannot account for why there are fish, reptiles, birds and mammals

No accidental genetic change can cause one kind of life to turn into another.

Fossils show a a sudden complex appreaence of life in great variety, each new kind sperate from previous kinds, no linking forms

I didn't literally mean one kind of animal into another as in, a dog into a cat or anything like that (just explaining myself).

Fossils do show a gradual change from one species to another. It is thought that all life started as single-celled organisms, and that these organisms diversified into the different kinds of animals you speak of - fish, reptiles, birds, mammals, etc.

I doubt that any experiment into evolution involving breeding experiments, could successfully prove or disprove it, as I don't think that the time-scale and number of 'breedings' would be sufficient enough to create a new animal.

If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the “punctuated equilibrium” theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils?
Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.
In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of the theory: “It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” As Darwin himself asserted: “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, must be truly enormous.”
On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each different type of living thing would reproduce only “according to its kind.” (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came into being by an act of creation, there would be no partial, unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be complete and highly complex, as living things are today.
In addition, if living things were created, they would be expected to appear suddenly in the fossil record, unconnected to anything before them. And if this was found to be true, what then? Darwin frankly admitted: “If numerous species .*.*. have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.”

Let us take a closer look at the evidence. In his book Red Giants and White Dwarfs Robert Jastrow states: “Sometime in the first billion years, life appeared on the earth’s surface. Slowly, the fossil record indicates, living organisms climbed the ladder from simple to more advanced forms.” From this description, one would expect that the fossil record has verified a slow evolution from the first “simple” life forms to complex ones. Yet, the same book says: “The critical first billion years, during which life began, are blank pages in the earth’s history.”
Also, can those first types of life truly be described as “simple”? “Going back in time to the age of the oldest rocks,” says Evolution From Space, “fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. Although we may care to think of fossil bacteria and fossil algae and microfungi as being simple compared to a dog or horse, the information standard remains enormously high. Most of the biochemical complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface rocks of the Earth were formed.”
From this beginning, can any evidence at all be found to verify that one-celled organisms evolved into many-celled ones? “The fossil record contains no trace of these preliminary stages in the development of many-celled organisms,” says Jastrow. Instead, he states: “The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until, about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth.”
Thus, at the start of what is called the Cambrian period, the fossil record takes an unexplained dramatic turn. A great variety of fully developed, complex sea creatures, many with hard outer shells, appear so suddenly that this time is often called an “explosion” of living things. A View of Life describes it: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.” Snails, sponges, starfish, lobsterlike animals called trilobites, and many other complex sea creatures appeared. Interestingly, the same book observes: “Some extinct trilobites, in fact, developed more complex and efficient eyes than any living arthropod possesses.”
Are there fossil links between this outburst of life and what went before it? In Darwin’s time such links did not exist. He admitted: “To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.”

Today, has the situation changed? Paleontologist Alfred S.*Romer noted Darwin’s statement about “the abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear” and wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times. ‘To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system,’ said Darwin, ‘I can give no satisfactory answer.’ Nor can we today,” said Romer.

Some argue that Precambrian rocks were too altered by heat and pressure to retain fossil links, or that no rocks were deposited in shallow seas for fossils to be retained. “Neither of these arguments has held up,” say evolutionists Salvador E.*Luria, Stephen Jay Gould and Sam Singer. They add: “Geologists have discovered many unaltered Precambrian sediments, and they contain no fossils of complex organisms.”

These facts prompted biochemist D.*B. Gower to comment, as related in England’s Kentish Times: “The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils.

Zoologist Harold Coffin concluded: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”

 

[ShanandBoc]

Ok so then according to your point of view we had to all of decended from two original apes then?

There would have been more than the two original apes. A population of 'apes' would have evolved from another species.

Ok so why dont we still evolve from the apes? No animals now evovle into any kind that is not their own do they??

There's no scientific evidence to prove man evolved from apes either, is there? That humans evolved from earlier humans, maybe, but there is no chronological link to apes.

Ill post about this after, i have to eat....im starving lol x

 

[lauren-kate]

In regards to the development of humans, it says that the branching that led to humans and chimps occurred about 7 million years ago. This was branching from early monkeys.

 

[lauren-kate]

Tiktaalik is known to be an intermediate (a missing link) between fish and amphibian - the fish growing legs, and fins developing from fins into other things (like a form of ear). The pictures in my book are quite impressive but I can't find anything similar online.

 

[Cariad_bach]

Ok so then according to your point of view we had to all of decended from two original apes then?

There would have been more than the two original apes. A population of 'apes' would have evolved from another species.

Ok so why dont we still evolve from the apes? No animals now evovle into any kind that is not their own do they??

There's no scientific evidence to prove man evolved from apes either, is there? That humans evolved from earlier humans, maybe, but there is no chronological link to apes.

Ill post about this after, i have to eat....im starving lol x

Aww bless you hun ... im glad everyone's still posting today .. learning loads more and have been trying to explain it all ot OH too who doesnt believe in evolution ... or God LOL

Still loving this thread girls especially the friendly feel to the debate xxx

 

[lauren-kate]

I'm glad it's a friendly debate too. I don't often get chance to discuss anything more than buying baby clothes and which onions to buy at the supermarket

 

[Serene123]

Wouldn't it be fab if we were just an aliens dream

 

[Aidan's Mummy]

I am having a bible study today and I don't think I will be able to concenrate too many questiosn buzzing in my head
xx

 

[lauren-kate]

I am having a bible study today and I don't think I will be able to concenrate too many questiosn buzzing in my head
xx

Your first question should be "what if we're all just an alien's dream?"

 

[andbabymakes3]

I'm severely sleep deprived at the moment so not at my most cohesive, so excuse me if I make no sense...!

There are a number of species which have evolved from one 'type' into another. There is a fish which has the ability to live on land and breathe air. Species are constantly adapting/changing, through natural selection and gene flow. Scientific fact cannot be argued with, no matter how many passages of the bible you quote!

Do you believe that God created life as we know it during the Cambrain period? Because there were living organisms before then - that's merely the time when everything became a lot more complex (admittedly without an explanation).

ShanandBoc, you are a fantastic person to have in a topic like this - I really respect when people can back their beliefs up with facts and deeper knowledge (even if I do disagree with you!).

Right, nap time for me! Happy debating ladies.

 

[flubdub]

There can be great variety among humans, cats , dogs for example but no so much that one living thing could chnage into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this.

Thats a good point. Id never thought about it, that no other animal has ever evolved into a different animal - although we are meant to have done. Maybe it has happened in the past, but so long ago, we would never know about it?
I dont mean, like a giraffe turned into a wasp or anything like that lol, but maybe things of similar genetic build (eg us and apes), like lizards and frogs or something.

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

I am sorry but to say that scientific views of evolution and the earth are illogical is purely insane. IMO it is much more unlikely that a "force" created us. We see evolution still happening. It didnt happen fast. It was a very very slow process.

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

I'm severely sleep deprived at the moment so not at my most cohesive, so excuse me if I make no sense...!

There are a number of species which have evolved from one 'type' into another. There is a fish which has the ability to live on land and breathe air. Species are constantly adapting/changing, through natural selection and gene flow. Scientific fact cannot be argued with, no matter how many passages of the bible you quote!

Do you believe that God created life as we know it during the Cambrain period? Because there were living organisms before then - that's merely the time when everything became a lot more complex (admittedly without an explanation).

ShanandBoc, you are a fantastic person to have in a topic like this - I really respect when people can back their beliefs up with facts and deeper knowledge (even if I do disagree with you!).

Right, nap time for me! Happy debating ladies.

Good post

 

[flubdub]

If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the “punctuated equilibrium” theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils?
Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.
In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of the theory: “It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” As Darwin himself asserted: “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, must be truly enormous.”
On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each different type of living thing would reproduce only “according to its kind.” (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came into being by an act of creation, there would be no partial, unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be complete and highly complex, as living things are today.
In addition, if living things were created, they would be expected to appear suddenly in the fossil record, unconnected to anything before them. And if this was found to be true, what then? Darwin frankly admitted: “If numerous species .*.*. have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.”

Let us take a closer look at the evidence. In his book Red Giants and White Dwarfs Robert Jastrow states: “Sometime in the first billion years, life appeared on the earth’s surface. Slowly, the fossil record indicates, living organisms climbed the ladder from simple to more advanced forms.” From this description, one would expect that the fossil record has verified a slow evolution from the first “simple” life forms to complex ones. Yet, the same book says: “The critical first billion years, during which life began, are blank pages in the earth’s history.”
Also, can those first types of life truly be described as “simple”? “Going back in time to the age of the oldest rocks,” says Evolution From Space, “fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. Although we may care to think of fossil bacteria and fossil algae and microfungi as being simple compared to a dog or horse, the information standard remains enormously high. Most of the biochemical complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface rocks of the Earth were formed.”
From this beginning, can any evidence at all be found to verify that one-celled organisms evolved into many-celled ones? “The fossil record contains no trace of these preliminary stages in the development of many-celled organisms,” says Jastrow. Instead, he states: “The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until, about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth.”
Thus, at the start of what is called the Cambrian period, the fossil record takes an unexplained dramatic turn. A great variety of fully developed, complex sea creatures, many with hard outer shells, appear so suddenly that this time is often called an “explosion” of living things. A View of Life describes it: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.” Snails, sponges, starfish, lobsterlike animals called trilobites, and many other complex sea creatures appeared. Interestingly, the same book observes: “Some extinct trilobites, in fact, developed more complex and efficient eyes than any living arthropod possesses.”
Are there fossil links between this outburst of life and what went before it? In Darwin’s time such links did not exist. He admitted: “To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.”

Today, has the situation changed? Paleontologist Alfred S.*Romer noted Darwin’s statement about “the abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear” and wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times. ‘To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system,’ said Darwin, ‘I can give no satisfactory answer.’ Nor can we today,” said Romer.

Some argue that Precambrian rocks were too altered by heat and pressure to retain fossil links, or that no rocks were deposited in shallow seas for fossils to be retained. “Neither of these arguments has held up,” say evolutionists Salvador E.*Luria, Stephen Jay Gould and Sam Singer. They add: “Geologists have discovered many unaltered Precambrian sediments, and they contain no fossils of complex organisms.”

These facts prompted biochemist D.*B. Gower to comment, as related in England’s Kentish Times: “The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils.

Zoologist Harold Coffin concluded: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”

That is amazing!! It certainly is all strange, and I find myself finding it hard to believe either of the theories! x

 

[flubdub]

So
On the basis that God created this planet and everything on it - did he also create the other planets? Any why is there no life on them?(the ones close to us)
If there is another planet out there will intelligent life (and lets face it, it is highly likely as nobody can give a number on how many planets there are out there) will God have created that intelligent life too?

I like the idea that God created us and the way it happened etc, but I struggle with the idea that with all the billions and billions of other planets out there, this planet was the special one, this was the only one he picked, or if not, and there are other planets out there, just like this one, is it all just a bit of a game?

 

[ShanandBoc]

So
On the basis that God created this planet and everything on it - did he also create the other planets? Any why is there no life on them?(the ones close to us)
If there is another planet out there will intelligent life (and lets face it, it is highly likely as nobody can give a number on how many planets there are out there) will God have created that intelligent life too?

I like the idea that God created us and the way it happened etc, but I struggle with the idea that with all the billions and billions of other planets out there, this planet was the special one, this was the only one he picked, or if not, and there are other planets out there, just like this one, is it all just a bit of a game?

Earth was created specifically for life, but who knows in the future, in paradise, when people live forever and the ressurection takes place, whether other planets will be made fit for human habitation, who knows? Or whether there would be more land on earth as at present majority of it is sea.

Yes God created the heavens and earth which would include the entire universe. Someone mentioned it absurd that God has no beginning or end, yet scientists have yet to find an end to the universe, its beyond us to really understand, very mind boggling indeed

The Genesis account doesnt mention what animals were created then, i guess the majority of the ones we see around us. Its really the account of human creation and the set up for human life to exist on earth, even how far the sun is positioned from earth is designed with absolute precison for life.

Who knows what animals existed before this account in Genesis, obviously dinosaurs for one.

If one was to study the amazing design and complexity of nature, im sorry but there is no other conclusion to come to other than an intelligent being behind it. It just defies logic otherwise.

 

[flubdub]

So
On the basis that God created this planet and everything on it - did he also create the other planets? Any why is there no life on them?(the ones close to us)
If there is another planet out there will intelligent life (and lets face it, it is highly likely as nobody can give a number on how many planets there are out there) will God have created that intelligent life too?

I like the idea that God created us and the way it happened etc, but I struggle with the idea that with all the billions and billions of other planets out there, this planet was the special one, this was the only one he picked, or if not, and there are other planets out there, just like this one, is it all just a bit of a game?

Earth was created specifically for life, but who knows in the future, in paradise, when people live forever and the ressurection takes place, whether other planets will be made fit for human habitation, who knows?

Yes God created the heavens and earth which would include the entire universe. Someone mentioned it absurd that God has no beginning or end, yet scientists have yet to find an end to the universe, its beyond us to really understand, very mind boggling indeed

The Genesis account doesnt mention what animals were created then, i guess the majority of the ones we see around us. Its really the account of human creation and the set up for human life to exist on earth, even how far the sun is positioned from earth is designed with absolute precison for life.

Who knows what animals existed before this account in Genesis, obviously dinosaurs for one.

If one was to study the amazing design and complexity of nature, im sorry but there is no other conclusion to come to other than an intelligent being behind it. It just defoes logic otherwise.

Do you think he will have created intelligent life on other planets? x

 

[ShanandBoc]

Well we really dont know, but we have yet to see any evidence of it.

I personally believe, no x

 

[ShanandBoc]

There are sevral species which have the ability to live on land and water.....but they only keep reproducing to their kind, just like humans do.

Animals yes may be able to adapt to different habitats to a certain extent due to global warming or what not, but thats still not the concept behind evolution at all.

Fossil and scientific evidence does not back up evolution, rather that the Genesis account of creation is much more likely.

There is much scientific evidence to back that up, even from evolutionists who have admitted there are huge holes in the theory (and yes even Darwin himself on many occassions). I have posted some already, but there is alot more on the subject.