Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus 282 Replies latest jw friends

  • Gerard

    Dear AGuest, of course you will not see any proof when you don't want to see any.

    A "non-religious" creationist slave of Christ and worshipper of the Lord. Is that cognitive dissonance or pure baiting?

  • Lion Cask
    Lion Cask

    Still going at it, I see. Tilting at windmills, I mean.

  • Qcmbr

    Apols. to the OP. This thread has obviously been severely hijacked. Maybe this shows that there are actually very few non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution but almost all the reasons why people embrace religion are based upon 'non-evidence.' We've certainly had a good example of the sophistry and wordplay required to maintain a discussion from a religious viewpoint compared with evidence after evidence that underpins the whole reason for the evolutionary viewpoint.

    The best part about being rational is that should we find actual evidence that disproves the current models ( say a dinosaur fossil with a human digesting in it's stomach) it would be amazing, wonderful and would send us puzzling away to find the cause and a better way to explain the evidence. Anyone who bases their truth in a story however, will do the exact opposite citing the very march of scientific thought, the accumulation of new information and progress as a reason to remain with the , cough, unaltering fairytale with all it's magical explanations.

  • Qcmbr

    Lion Cask, I was once a windmill :)

  • thetrueone

    The hearsay stories from mystical ancient spiritual seers can not compare to the amount of evidence accumulated on

    the appearance of biological evolution of species on earth to date. Evidence that is actual present on to species that are actually living today.

    In comparing the two Creation theories obviously spiritual creationism is the most easily to accept and understand,

    particularly where little knowledge or understanding of biological evolution is present.

  • PSacramento

    This thread made me realise something:

    Here we are in the 21st century and in 13 pages of a thread on evolution, we have an impass.

    Now, imagine IF the writer of Genesis did in fact ask God how the world came to be and God tried to explain to him, so that he could write it and explain to people living 4000 years ago.

    Now, THAT would be a conversation !

    LOL !

  • Gerard

    This is my report of what I learned from my trip to Bizzarro World:

  • TD


    I enjoyed those videos. I got hold of a copy of Ray Comfort's introduction to Darwin's 150th anniversay work and read it just now. Wow....

    It probably surpasses anything the JW's have ever produced for dishonestly and ignorance.

  • AGuest
    That takes the prize for intellectual dishonesty.

    I am a lot of things, dear Cofty (peace to you!), but dishonest... in ANY way... isn't one of them. But since I'm feeling a little menopausal today... which usually causes me to a bit MORE honest than usual, let's call what you stated what it is: BS. Plain and simple. I think a review of page 8 of this thread will show that. I think our discussion on the previous thread that I referenced will show that. Your statement that I "misquoted" you "in the post above" is BS, as well; I didn't quote you at all.

    This thread is an outstanding example of the contrast between reason and dogma.

    I agree; however, I think you're confused as to who's being reasonable and who's dogmatic. I was/am willing to budge. You don't seem to be.

    I think you've made it clear that you are bringing to the table subjective evidence in a discussion where objective evidence is required.

    I don't believe so, dear Qcmbr (again, peace to you!). I UNDERSTAND how the "evidence" SEEMS to show such and such. But SEEMS doesn't cut it for me, sorry. Because such "seeming" evidence is subject to CHANGE... when time passes, and so technology and/or our understanding changes. "It would appear that" is JW-speak to me, and much of what folks believe about the evolution of HUMANS... is based on "it would appear that."

    I am fascinated by your suggestion that there are steps anyone can take to get the same results as you ( so you suggest you have some repeatable tests!)

    Why, dear one? I only followed the steps given me by God and Christ. I have no doubt you can be given the same. In fact, they are, for the most part, written. At least, the basics are.

    but that people will need to accept immaterial evidences as the end result.

    Well, yes, they will. Now, if God were a human, then material evidence could be obtained. Find a grave, dig up the bones, do a test on the DNA, etc., etc.. But the Most Holy One of Israel ISN'T a human; He's a spirit. And so... He's alive (because spirits don't die). So... no grave... no bones to dig up or do DNA testing on. Gotta find some other "way." And there is One: Christ. HE is the Way. Truly. I am not kidding you.

    I will happily listen to your methodology, controls, analysis of results and your definition of what those results are. I'll even give them a try ( assuming there isn't some get out clause requiring an excessive timescale or I need to change gender or take herbal supplements.)

    Yet, those are physical processes, yes? And so, you're saying, "I will listen IF you show me a physical process by which I can know these things, yes? Meaning, you really WON'T "happily" listen to MY methodology? Right? Or am I misunderstanding you? Because if I am, please... PM me: because I would more than happy to share the "process" with you.

    I am glad you don't use the bible as your authority. I'm puzzled as to where you now get info on Christ unless you claim to be a prophet.

    I receive the information directly from my Lord; however, I do not claim to be a prophet. I am merely a good-for-nothing servant.

    I'm aware you don't claim any brand of Christianity except the one you've agreed inside your head.

    See? That's not trying to "happily" listen; that's trying to malign and ridicule. Why? What is so... well, fearful... about my position that you must respond with, well, animosity. Because that really is the underlying motivation for such a comment, such sarcasm... which can only be a product of your fear. What are you people afraid of???

    That's all well and good. You cannot evade objections to religious viewpoints by claiming to be religious - just not religious like 'them'.

    I do not claim to be religious; I am not religious. I have respect and regard for science; I have absolutely none for religion. I have respect and regard for the people IN religion. And for the religious. But absolutely none whatsoever for religion. I vehemently believe it is a snare, a racket, a false prophet, and a dwelling place for demons and for every hated seraph (i.e., a fiery flying 'thing', mistransliterated "bird"). In her is where BAD spirits lurk and live.

    If you are convinced by subjective evidence over and above objective evidence then you should evaluate why you discuss reality as though you had something of objective value to add.

    I disagree that I am discussing subjective evidence as you state. Again, I understand how it may SEEM that the objective evidence... as it applies to one situation... MUST apply to others, indeed ALL others... but I disagree. I disagree because life... and the living organism... is not that simple. It is in simpler life forms, yes. But it much less simple as the life involved becomes more complicated.

    Since you hold an unfair advantage in this discussion where we have to be rational you clearly don't have to be; you cannot be verified whereas all the evidence presented to you you can happily dismiss if it in any way disagrees with your internal head evidence. You can doubt anything you want but your beliefs are utterly uncheckable.

    I understand the problem that appears to pose for you, dear Qcmbr, but it's not accurate. I am not asking you to be any more rational than myself. This was not a discussion about what I believe so much as about what you believe. I could not believe in God and Christ and still your evidence would prove that man evolved from another species, lower life form, or common ancestor with all other living things. But my beliefs are indeed checkable - just not physically. Now, if you can allow yourself to entertain that not everything in existence IS physical... and we can go from there...

    Ergo you bring nothing to the table and everything you have said could have been typed by a noodle appendage (bless his tomatoeyness) believer. It would look and read no different.

    That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. Just as it is my opinion that, based on the evidence presented... nothing proves that man evolved from another species, lower life form, or common ancestor with all other living things. Now, if that TRUTH makes you mad at ME, well, so be it. I guess you're just gonna have to be mad. But it wasn't my evidence... nor did I offer it as such proof... so...

    I think the bottom line... and I do NOT mean any arrogance, truly... is that I have a bit MORE of an open mind than you do. Because my mind CAN entertain that not all that is in existence IS physical... but that there are things beyond. Even beyond what the mind... that is enslaved by the physical body... can comprehend. As someone said, dear one: "FREE YOUR MIND... and the rest will follow." Christ freed mine... when he freed me. (John 8:32, 36).

    When we transcend, dear Qcmbr... when understand so much more... because there IS so much.

    Again, peace to you!

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,


  • AGuest

    Greetings, dear TD, and peace to you!

    You've mentioned "evolution from a common ancestor" and "being created by means of such" in contrast to each other. Would there be an observable difference in the physical evidence between the former and the latter?

    There would be... and was, dear one. The first was not a physical entity at all; the second was a partly physical entity that contained the essence of the first IN it (him).

    If the evidence would appear the same either way, then I doubt if there's really a disagreement.

    Well, the first is the means by which the second CAME to life; began to breathe. Before that, "it" didn't (breathe).

    Evolution for me is certainly not a vehicle to deny the existence of God

    I agree, dear TD. I find it SO fascinating, sometimes, that folks believe you cannot have both, that one absolutely negates the other. It was not my looking for the answer to either one that allowed me to receive the truth about it, however; it was trying to understand why it had to be one OR the other. I mean, why? And my Lord told me that it did not, except with regard to man. Because OF all living things, man is the CLOSEST to His likeness (although not just, anymore). In form and in spirit, but no longer in body. And man is the only one who can be returned to His likeness.

    While animals are spirits, too, in "earthen" vessels... they are "lesser" servants (albeit, to be respected and cared for, even if they are a provision for food - thus, the "law" to Israel was that one can only eat the vessel but not the blood, because the blood contains the spirit... the FULL and TRUE "person" code... whether man or animal).

    I bid you peace, dear one!

    Your servant and a slave of Christ,


Share this