Debating evolution, intelligent design and cosmology with a JW

by Thestumbler83 30 Replies latest watchtower bible

Thestumbler83

Hi all,

I’ve been having an email exchange with a JW family member and the discussion seem to have become a bit heated – and I’m not quite sure why. I don’t think I’ve said anything obviously offensive and I’ve been very careful with my wording. But I think I’m sometimes a bit tone deaf with these things. My day job is writing financial reports so I tend to write in a very matter of fact manner and sometimes this can be misinterpreted as curtness when it’s not (just dispassionate analysis).

Anyway, here’s the background; a few months ago I wrote an email to my Dad about evolution (he had previously asked me to explain the evidence in my own words). I wrote this document:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kc7umf91ujxy4qk/Evolution%20-%20Fact%20and%20Theory%204.0.pdf?dl=0 (DOC version)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/esdu0uyv4vuns2r/Evolution%20-%20Fact%20and%20Theory%204.0.docx?dl=0 (PDF version).

(if you don't want to read the whole document you can probably skip to the emails in my next post)

In his reply he basically said none of what I wrote proved evolution but he did not specifically address any of the evidence I presented. He also claimed that evolution is not a theory. Over several emails I asked him on what basis he did not consider evolution to be a valid scientific theory and why specifically the evidence I presented did not indicate evolution. He skirted around the questions and never gave an answer.

He then asked me how I explained a universe without intelligent design (which he considers a proven fact). So I wrote this document about current explanations for the universe in particle physics/cosmology:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ds35un1kat10mfm/Universe%20from%20nothing%20Final.docx?dl=0 (DOC version)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/j59r2ga340eenk0/Universe%20from%20nothing%20Final.pdf?dl=0 (PDF version)

This brings up to the last few days. Where our emails have become a bit heated. Any comments or feedback or suggestions would be welcome.
Thestumbler83
Here is the chain of recent emails:

Dad:

Because you have made reference to not being 100% (99.9% and 80-90% )confident in your beliefs it then prompted me to ask the question in my previous email "..... the chemical elements did not just happen, both must have required intelligence. Do you agree?"

My response:

That’s more or less true. I have varying degrees of confidence in my beliefs based on the weight of evidence for any particular idea. For example, I'm 99.99% confident the world is round, I'm 99.9% confident life has evolved over time, I'm maybe 80% confident in abiogenesis (maybe less, my mind changes quite often on this question), and I'm maybe 60% confident the universe was not created by some intelligent agent (again, my mind changes on this question too). I'm maybe 0.01% confident the God of Bible is real (sorry). These numbers are somewhat arbitrary and more general approximations but they give you an idea.

I try not to be absolutely certain of anything because I know the human mind can easily mislead itself through cognition biases. And because once you've decided you already have the truth you cannot still claim to be honestly searching for the truth. Its important to always be open to the possibility you might be wrong because it's so easy to rationalise contrary evidence once you decided something is true (because any evidence to the contrary must necessarily be wrong because you already know you have the truth). This is closed thinking and ideological thinking.

This is why I try not to let my beliefs become my identity but rather tie my identity to a system of thought and critical thinking and a systematic process of evaluating truth claims (what Carl Sagan described as 'scientific scepticism').

How I arrive at my beliefs is more important to me than the beliefs themselves. I don't always succeed but I try my best and one has to be at least aware of faulty thinking patterns (such as ideology) to avoid falling prey to them.

The attachment I sent answers your specific question regarding the origin of matter. In short, I strongly disagree that the existence of matter proves an intelligent designer. An intelligent designer is a possible explanation but one amongst many. If an intelligent designer can exist without a cause then so too can the conditions from which a universe could emerge. To argue one is possible and not the other is inconsistent.

Claiming the universe proves the existence of an intelligent designer is also what is known as a 'god of the gaps' argument. This means forming a conclusion based on what we don't know rather than what we do know (another term for this is an 'argument from ignorance').

For example, it was once argued that the perfect motions of the planets was proof of God; how else could we explain the movement of the planets? It was surely the power of God suspending these great bodies in empty space and moving them with such mathematical precision. Then Kepler and Newton came along and discovered that the laws of planetary motion and gravity were much better and simpler explanations. God was not required.

People mistook the lack of a naturalistic explanation as positive evidence for a supernatural one. They based their conclusion on a lack of knowledge rather than actual knowledge. This is exactly the same as creationist who today argue that the 'fine tuning' of our universe proves an intelligent designer; 'I cannot explain X therefor God did it'. But just like the movement of the planets, we may yet find an explanation for the fine tuning of the universe, we can't just assume 'god did it' because we cannot currently explain it.

But please don't mistake what I'm saying. My criticism of intelligent design does not mean I reject the possibility. I think there is a reasonable chance it is true. I'm just pointing out the problems with the argument. I readily admit similar problems with alternative explanations. I'm not claiming certainty. I just don't believe the existence of energy/matter prove God.

If you are interested in reading an alternative explanation to intelligent design then please read the attachment I sent you. If you want to make a case for intelligent design then I think you need to answer the questions I raised before talking shout fine tuning.

And please let me know if you intend to answer any of my questions. You seem to keep ignoring them.

Dad reply:

Thanks, so, again please, let's try and keep things simple and not digress into other areas just for now.

If when you and your family are going to board the plane to fly back here you realised the plane was only 80% safe / and had an unreliable history would you risk the lives of those you love and board it, yes or no?

If you also discovered that the crew on board claimed to have a greater understanding than yourself and were also claimed to be experts could not agree on its destination and were arguing amongst themselves would you feel comfortable boarding the plane because everyone else was? Yes or no?

The reason I ask this is because of your comment "........... you and I are really operating under fundamentally different understandings of evidence and reason" which I believe is a valid point.

My reply:

This is a little unfair, you have still not answered any of my questions or confirmed whether you intend to answer my questions.

We may be operating under different standards of evidence and reason but it is hard to know because you will not answer my question whether you think theories can be confirmed by testing predictions. So here are my questions, again;

1) do you accept that scientific theories can confirmed via the testing of their predictions

2) in what way does evolution not meet the definition of scientific theory? (the Encyclopedia you keep referring to does not support your position).

3) are there any arguments against evolution (for example, a lack of fossils) you would no longer use after reading my evolution email?

4) you claim there is no evidence for evolution - In what way do homologous Endogenous Retrovirus Insertions (ERVs) not qualify as evidence for macro evolution? How can homologous ERVs (and their phylogenetic distribution) be explained by an intelligent designer?

If you do not intend to answer these questions then please let me know.

I will answer your questions in good faith but I hope you return the favour in kind (or at least tell me if you do not intend to do so).

So to answer your questions, no I would not trust my family's fate on an 80% chance of survival.

Fortunately, my family's lives do not depend on me being right about the origin of the universe and if they did I would still be faced with same probabilities and uncertainties. And any God who would hold my family hostage on the condition that I believe in his existence (and the right religious interpretation) despite there being no evidence as far as my reason can tell would be a cruel God indeed.

And no, I wouldn't fly in a plain if the crew were in such disagreement but this of not analogous to scientific consensus (or lack there of). The lack of a consensus regarding a naturalistic explanation for something is not proof positive for a supernatural one such as God. It just means we don't know yet. So, while I might not fly in such a plain as you described I wouldn't hop onto a magic flying carpet as an alternative! Some plains might be unreliable but this does not mean magic carpets are real!

I'm not obliged to commit myself to anyone explanation over another in the absence of evidence. The lack of scientific evidence and consensus is exactly why my belief in a a godless universe is tentative. I admit the possibility of an intelligently designed universe but I think other explanations are more probable (because they don't assume the existence of an intelligent agent existing without a cause but instead assume much simpler conditions).

Like I said before, if someone put a gun to my head, I would still be faced with the same uncertainties. Appealing to my emotions and need to protect my family does not change the evidence or the odds (as far as I can determine them)

And, of course, none of this negates the truth of biological evolution. If the universe was created then evolution is still true. Either that or God conspired to fabricate a fake evolutionary history in the fossil record, in our biology and in our genes. This seems very unlikely to me.

I hope you try and answer my questions in your next reply

Dad latest reply:
```
I was asking questions to establish if there was common ground to form the basis of a discussion but it seems not at this moment in time. I do believe that " you and I are really operating under fundamentally different understandings of evidence and reason" and I see no purpose in discussing a subject with anyone unless they are able to explain the basis for their belief in simple terms and point to a solid foundation for that belief where others are not in disagreement, but rather agreement.

 

Over 8 million people are in complete agreement that life was created and that we have a spiritual side, and a need to worship, and that that need is fulfilled. It is up to science (where many believe in god) to prove there is no God but they will never do it.

 

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201511/mathematics-scientist-believe-in-god/

 

Regarding your comments about God below, I dont know which one you are referring to but it cant be the only "true God" I assume you are referring to the god worshiped by the masses. 
```
Thestumbler83

Sorry, here's some improved formatting:

Here is the chain of recent emails:

Dad:

Because you have made reference to not being 100% (99.9% and 80-90% )confident in your beliefs it then
prompted me to ask the question in my previous email "..... the chemical elements did not just happen,
both must have required intelligence. Do you agree?"

My response:

That’s more or less true. I have varying degrees of confidence in my beliefs based on the weight of evidence for
any particular idea. For example, I'm 99.99% confident the world is round, I'm 99.9% confident life has evolved
over time, I'm maybe 80% confident in abiogenesis (maybe less, my mind changes quite often on this question),
and I'm maybe 60% confident the universe was not created by some intelligent agent (again, my mind changes on
this question too). I'm maybe 0.01% confident the God of Bible is real (sorry). These numbers are somewhat
arbitrary and more general approximations but they give you an idea.

I try not to be absolutely certain of anything because I know the human mind can easily mislead itself through
cognition biases. And because once you've decided you already have the truth you cannot still claim to be
honestly searching for the truth. Its important to always be open to the possibility you might be wrong because
it's so easy to rationalise contrary evidence once you decided something is true (because any evidence to the contrary must necessarily be wrong because you already know you have the truth). This is closed thinking and ideological thinking.

This is why I try not to let my beliefs become my identity but rather tie my identity to a system of thought and
critical thinking and a systematic process of evaluating truth claims (what Carl Sagan described as
'scientific scepticism').

How I arrive at my beliefs is more important to me than the beliefs themselves. I don't always succeed but I try
my best and one has to be at least aware of faulty thinking patterns (such as ideology) to avoid falling prey to
them.

The attachment I sent answers your specific question regarding the origin of matter. In short, I strongly disagree
that the existence of matter proves an intelligent designer. An intelligent designer is a possible explanation but one amongst many. If an intelligent designer can exist without a cause then so too can the conditions from which a universe could emerge. To argue one is possible and not the other is inconsistent.

Claiming the universe proves the existence of an intelligent designer is also what is known as a 'god of the gaps'
argument. This means forming a conclusion based on what we don't know rather than what we do know
(another term for this is an 'argument from ignorance').

For example, it was once argued that the perfect motions of the planets was proof of God; how else could we
explain the movement of the planets? It was surely the power of God suspending these great bodies in empty
space and moving them with such mathematical precision. Then Kepler and Newton came along and discovered that the laws of planetary motion and gravity were much better and simpler explanations. God was not required.

People mistook the lack of a naturalistic explanation as positive evidence for a supernatural one. They based their
conclusion on a lack of knowledge rather than actual knowledge. This is exactly the same as creationist who today
argue that the 'fine tuning' of our universe proves an intelligent designer; 'I cannot explain X therefor God did it'.
But just like the movement of the planets, we may yet find an explanation for the fine tuning of the universe, we
can't just assume 'god did it' because we cannot currently explain it.

But please don't mistake what I'm saying. My criticism of intelligent design does not mean I reject the possibility.
I think there is a reasonable chance it is true. I'm just pointing out the problems with the argument. I readily admit
similar problems with alternative explanations. I'm not claiming certainty. I just don't believe the existence of
energy/matter prove God.

If you are interested in reading an alternative explanation to intelligent design then please read the attachment I
sent you. If you want to make a case for intelligent design then I think you need to answer the questions I raised
before talking shout fine tuning.

And please let me know if you intend to answer any of my questions. You seem to keep ignoring them.

Dad reply:

Thanks, so, again please, let's try and keep things simple and not digress into other areas just for now.

If when you and your family are going to board the plane to fly back here you realised the plane was only 80%
safe / and had an unreliable history would you risk the lives of those you love and board it, yes or no?

If you also discovered that the crew on board claimed to have a greater understanding than yourself and were
also claimed to be experts could not agree on its destination and were arguing amongst themselves would you
feel comfortable boarding the plane because everyone else was? Yes or no?

The reason I ask this is because of your comment "........... you and I are really operating under fundamentally
different understandings of evidence and reason" which I believe is a valid point.

My reply:

This is a little unfair, you have still not answered any of my questions or confirmed whether you intend to answer
my questions.

We may be operating under different standards of evidence and reason but it is hard to know because you will not
answer my question whether you think theories can be confirmed by testing predictions. So here are my questions,
again;

1) do you accept that scientific theories can confirmed via the testing of their predictions

2) in what way does evolution not meet the definition of scientific theory? (the Encyclopedia you keep referring to
does not support your position).

3) are there any arguments against evolution (for example, a lack of fossils) you would no longer use after reading
my evolution email?

4) you claim there is no evidence for evolution - In what way do homologous Endogenous Retrovirus Insertions
(ERVs) not qualify as evidence for macro evolution? How can homologous ERVs (and their phylogenetic distribution)
be explained by an intelligent designer?

If you do not intend to answer these questions then please let me know.

I will answer your questions in good faith but I hope you return the favour in kind (or at least tell me if you do not
intend to do so).

So to answer your questions, no I would not trust my family's fate on an 80% chance of survival.

Fortunately, my family's lives do not depend on me being right about the origin of the universe and if they did I
would still be faced with same probabilities and uncertainties. And any God who would hold my family hostage on
the condition that I believe in his existence (and the right religious interpretation) despite there being no evidence
as far as my reason can tell would be a cruel God indeed.

And no, I wouldn't fly in a plain if the crew were in such disagreement but this of not analogous to scientific
consensus (or lack there of). The lack of a consensus regarding a naturalistic explanation for something is not proof
positive for a supernatural one such as God. It just means we don't know yet. So, while I might not fly in such a plain
as you described I wouldn't hop onto a magic flying carpet as an alternative! Some plains might be unreliable but this does not mean magic carpets are real!

I'm not obliged to commit myself to anyone explanation over another in the absence of evidence. The lack of
scientific evidence and consensus is exactly why my belief in a a godless universe is tentative. I admit the possibility
of an intelligently designed universe but I think other explanations are more probable (because they don't assume
the existence of an intelligent agent existing without a cause but instead assume much simpler conditions).

Like I said before, if someone put a gun to my head, I would still be faced with the same uncertainties. Appealing to
my emotions and need to protect my family does not change the evidence or the odds (as far as I can determine
them)

And, of course, none of this negates the truth of biological evolution. If the universe was created then evolution
is still true. Either that or God conspired to fabricate a fake evolutionary history in the fossil record, in our biology
and in our genes. This seems very unlikely to me.

I hope you try and answer my questions in your next reply

Thestumbler83

My Dad's latest reply:

I was asking questions to establish if there was common ground to form the basis of a discussion but it seems

not at this moment in time. I do believe that " you and I are really operating under fundamentally different

understandings of evidence and reason" and I see no purpose in discussing a subject with anyone unless they are

able to explain the basis for their belief in simple terms and point to a solid foundation for that belief where others

are not in disagreement, but rather agreement.



Over 8 million people are in complete agreement that life was created and that we have a spiritual side, and a

need to worship, and that that need is fulfilled. It is up to science (where many believe in god) to prove there is no

God but they will never do it.

 http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201511/mathematics-scientist-believe-in-god/

Regarding your comments about God below, I dont know which one you are referring to but it cant be the only

"true God" I assume you are referring to the god worshiped by the masses.

Thestumbler83
And here's my reply I'm considering sending:

I'm a bit confused by your email. I took great effort to answer your questions and explain the reasoning and
evidence behind my answers. I wrote over 60 pages explaining the evidence for evolution. I wrote over 12 pages
explaining why I do not believe the existence of matter/energy proves an intelligent designer. My emails were, I
think, polite and respectful and I was very patient with you not answering any of my questions (or even
acknowledging them in most cases). But my email still seems to have upset for some reason and I'm not sure why.

You have not offered any reason for why I am wrong on any particular point, but your last email seems to suggest
that I am ‘unable to explain the (basis) for my beliefs in simple terms’. It seems unfair to me to make this claim
but offer no reason, example or explanation for why this is the case. Particularly so considering the effort I have
put into answering all your questions when you have repeatedly failed to answer any of my own.

If you could show me any error in my thinking it would allow me the opportunity to reconsider my beliefs on a
particular point but I can't do this if you don't tell me why I might be wrong. So please tell me, in what way am I
unable to explain the basis for my beliefs? What beliefs in particular do you feel I have not explained? What claims
have I made that I have not substantiated with sufficient reason or evidence?

Your email also implies that I am unable to point to a solid basis underpinning my beliefs but I do not think this is
true. I can very easily point to the principles upon which my beliefs are based; they are reason, logic, evidence and
critical thinking. My beliefs are underpinned by what is known as 'scientific scepticism'.

Scientific scepticism causes me to reserve judgement and not commit to any particular position when there is
insufficient evidence from which to draw a conclusion with confidence. Such is the case regarding the origin of the
universe. I openly admit I do not know the answer and I acknowledge the possibility of an intelligent designer. But
I also accept the possibility of alternative explanations that I personally consider to be slightly more plausible.
I can't offer any proof but I've given the reasons for why I believe this to be the case:

· The net energy/mass of the universe appears to be zero (meaning no pre-existing energy or matter
was required to create it)

· At the quantum level, the normal rules of causality break down so it is demonstrably not true that all
events must be preceded by a cause. The quantum world is probabilistic not deterministic.

· The conclusion that an intelligent designer can exist without a cause breaks the premise upon which the
intelligent designer’s existence is predicated. For example, the argument that 'the universe must have a cause therefore God exists; but God has no cause' is logically inconsistent.

· If an intelligent designer can exist without a cause then so too can the conditions from which a universe
could emerge. To admit one is possible and not the other is inconsistent.

· The ‘universe from nothing’ hypothesis seems more likely to me than an ‘intelligent designer from
nothing’ because it assumes fewer conditions (both assume the possibility of something from nothing).
For example, quantum fluctuation and virtual particles have been detected and fit our current understanding
of physics. There is also a mathematical proof demonstrating that virtual could in theory create a universe very similar to our own under certain
conditions. There is however no experimental evidence demonstrating the existence of an intelligent designer and no understanding of the laws or conditions from which an intelligent designer could emerge.

· The multiverse hypothesis explains the fine tuning of our universe as well as an intelligent designer.
Therefore the fine tuning of our universe is not proof of an intelligent designer.

Maybe these reasons are invalid but it would be nice if you could explain to me why this might be the case rather
than just asserting my reasoning is baseless. Because I'm really not sure how you can claim my beliefs are
baseless when you have not even addressed the reasons I have given for them.

Your email also seems to imply I should just believe whatever you say because 8 million people happen to share
the same belief as you. This is a poor reason to hold a belief because the popularity of a particular belief is not a
reliable indicator of its truth. For example, in Sweden the majority of people are either atheist of irreligious
whereas in North America the majority of people believe in God. Does this mean God exists in America but not
in Sweden or is it more likely that popular belief is driven by culture to some degree? Should I be swayed by the
prevailing secularism in Sweden or the religiosity in America? To which group should I defer my own judgement?

The truth is not subject to popular opinion and 8 million people is not an impressive number in any case. As of 2012
there were over 7 billion people on the planet so 8 million people represents a tiny minority (just 0.11% of the
overall population! Just one tenth of one percent). There are 320 million people in North America and Pew poll data
indicates that 3.1% of them are atheists. This means there are more atheists in North America alone than there are
members of your religion in the entire world. I would never claim this is evidence for atheism (which is generally a
minority view in most places and a tiny minority globally) but you seem to think 8 million people agreeing with
you is somehow evidence. It is not. You would not accept the belief shared by another group (such as Mormons)
as evidence for anything so why should I accept your group's belief as evidence?

Besides this, how do you know 8 million people are in complete agreement with you? If any of those 8 million
people openly disagreed with you then they would be liable to be shunned by their entire family and social
network. They are not free to express their beliefs so you can't know how many are true believers.

The reason I mentioned God holding my family hostage is because many religions teach this to be case; unbelievers
will not go to heaven or will be punished in some way. Your analogy about my family's safety on travelling on my
plane seemed to imply their real life well-being was somehow related to my personal beliefs. Perhaps I
misunderstood the point.

You claim that the 'true god' would not punish people for holding the wrong beliefs. I hope this is true
(because such a God would be very cruel) but this does appear to be what your own religion teaches.
You are a member of a religious organisation (a member of the clergy class no less) whose leadership claims to
speak for God. This organisation has claimed in print that only members of their organisation will survive an
immanent mass genocide:

"Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the
protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed
system dominated by Satan the Devil."
Watchtower 1989 Sep 1 p.19

"Similarly, Jehovah is using only one organization today to accomplish his will. To receive everlasting life in the earthly
Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it."
Watchtower 1983 Feb 15 p.12

"During the final period of the ancient world that perished in the Flood, Noah was a faithful preacher of righteousness.
(2 Peter 2:5) In these last days of the present system of things, Jehovahs people are making known Gods righteous
standards and are declaring good news about the possibility of surviving into the new world.
(2 Peter 3:9-13) Just as Noah and his God-fearing family were preserved in the ark, survival of individuals today
depends on their faith and their loyal association with the earthly part of Jehovahs universal organization."
Watchtower 2006 May 15 p.22 "Are You Prepared for Survival?"

Is this not holding my family's well-being hostage? Maybe you don't share these beliefs (and I hope not because they are
hateful beliefs) but this rather undermines your claim unity of belief between 8 million people.

You are right about one thing however; science will never disprove the existence of God. But this is because God is an
untestable and unfalsifiable proposition and therefore beyond the purview of scientific investigation. Science will never
disprove the existence of the Christian god in the same way it will never disprove the existence of Zeus or Raa but this not a
valid reason to believe in one particular God over another. The burden of proof is on the believer or the proponent of a
particular claim not the other way around.

Like I've said before, you are an atheist regarding every God accept for one. You do not need to disprove every other God to
hold this position because the burden of proof is on the believers of those other gods to prove their God exists -
not you to prove they don't exist. Likewise, the burden of proof is on you to prove your God exists.
I can't prove he doesn't exist but neither can I prove Zeus doesn't exist - but what reason can you give me that I should
believe in Jehovah but not Zeus?

If you disagree with the burden of proof and think your own beliefs should just be uncritically accepted by everyone then
we really do have a different understanding of evidence and reason.

And you keep quoting scientists or linking to articles about scientists who happen to believe in intelligent design like it
proves something. It does not. The fact that some scientists believe in intelligent design does not make intelligent design a
legitimate scientific idea. There are standards of evidence in science and ideas are measured by the weight of evidence not
the personal authority of individual scientists who happen to believe in those ideas. Intelligent design simply does not meet
scientific standards if evidence because it is unfalsifiable and generates no predictions that can be tested.

So citing the fact that some scientists believe in intelligent design does not in itself validate your beliefs. Your beliefs should
stand on their own evidential merit not be held because other intelligent people happen to believe them to be true. And you
still completely ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with creationism and intelligent design in
general. The National Academy of Science charted belief in God as low as 5.5 percent among biologists and 7.5 percent
among physicist and astronomers in a 1998 survey. If you think scientists are a group who should be listened to on these
matters why do you ignore what the majority of them actually say?

I've explained this to you before but you don't address the points and instead just repeat the same discredited talking points.
So yes, some very intelligent, highly educated scientists believe in intelligent. I accept this. But what is the actual evidence in
your own words?

And please, perhaps before trying to make a case for intelligent design or linking to creationist articles you should consider
addressing the 60 pages of evidence I presented showing the reasons why I believe evolution is true and creationism is false.

So, here are my questions:
```
1) do you accept that scientific theories can confirmed via the testing of their predictions

2) in what way does evolution not meet the definition of scientific theory? (the Encyclopedia you keep referring to 
```
```
does not support your position).

3) are there any arguments against evolution (for example, a lack of fossils) you would no longer use after reading 
```
```
my evolution email?

4) you claim there is no evidence for evolution -  In what way do homologous Endogenous Retrovirus Insertions 
```
```
(ERVs) not qualify as evidence for macro evolution? How can homologous ERVs (and their phylogenetic distribution) 
```
```
be explained by an intelligent designer? 
```
Thestumbler83

I'm sorry, I'm terrible at HTML formatting
truthseeker100

Welcome Stumbler. How old is your father and how long has he been a witness?
Thestumbler83

He's about 60 and been in for about 20 years. He's an elder and I would say a true believer.
Talking to him about religion and science is a bit like playing chess with a pigeon, he knocks the pieces over, shits all over the board and struts around like he won.
I'm probably a bit preachy myself but I at least try to follow certain rules of evidence and debate.
FreeGirl2006

Good and rational thought process, but it appears you are talking to a wall who has no desire to explore anything that is different from his belief system.
truthseeker100

He is 60 and has only been a witness for 20 years. Even though he is an elder he only became a witness at 40.There may be hope for him but probably not from anything you could say. Fathers can be funny that way. Keep showing him respect and ask him the occasional question to make him think.

Debating evolution, intelligent design and cosmology with a JW

Share this