by cofty 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Can we just clear up the fact that "ignorant" is not an insult?
It simply means not having knowledge about something.
I'm perfectly ignorant on the subject of British history. It doesn't mean that I'm stupid or that I couldn't learn it, just that I never have had to learn it during my American schooling.
Thank you GT
We are all ignorant about lots of things. Life is too short and the sum of human knowledge too great for it to be otherwise.
There are some things we are wilfully ignorant about because they just don't interest us. That's fine.
I think that what is not reasonable is to be wilfully ignorant about something that we choose to criticise.
There seems to be a tendency to imagine that everything is just a matter of opinion or preference and that everybody's choice is equally valid. It's an incredibly lazy and arrogant position.
I'm perfectly ignorant on the subject of British history
Digest version is that we used to own you guys. Then there was a tea party in Boston Harbour and then there was The Tea Party and then there was Trump. Serves you right
Haha! It does serve us right, doesn't it?
American digest version: Magna Carta, blah, blah, blah, Feudalism, blah, blah, blah, Shakespeare, blah, blah, blah, the Puritans, blah, blah, blah, and then straight onto the Revolution!
And, sometimes in the advanced version, there's a little bit about the silliness of Henry VIII. :P
The sweeping dismissal of stated facts because huge time scales are involved is typical of JWs simplistic view of evolution. They just see it as scientific eye-wash. They cannot comprehend that these time scales are accurately and painstakingly calculated by dedicated scientists and not just pulled out of their back sides.
Here's the thing. I have often had to sit through public talks about "the marvels of creation" during which the size of the universe is discussed. The distances are described in light years with unimaginable numbers involved. The audience nods reverently in approval,
Here is the problem. The study of the universe uses the same scientific method and similar techniques to arrive at the unquestioned numbers involved. You can't have it both ways, universal distances and geological time are part of the scientific whole. You can't brag about one whilst scoffing at the other.
"what greater evidence could there be of a loving creator than our colourful world and the human eye that is equipped to appreciate it?."
There are two ideas expressed in this quote: 1)We live in a colorful world and 2)We have eyes equipped to appreciate it.
Actually, it's the brain that "appreciates it". But that point aside, I'd be interested in what mechanism is behind "appreciation". Is there a natural explanation for our "appreciation" of color?
That question led me to this article, which seems to indicate that the jury is still out:
@GodZoo
Sorry to go back, but I have just jumped on this thread.
The modern synthesis is a very broad and often complex paradigm. The purpose of Cofty's OP was to briefly review some aspects of the evolution of colour vision. You made out that mentioning...
Following the sudden demise of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago our ancestors began to thrive. Lots of vacant niches were available to be exploited including the opportunity to feed in daylight.
...is a "simplistic argument". Just of out interest, if you had to chose again do you think the above quote is either
a) a simplistic argument
or
b) a very short summary of a well researched body of evidence that would not be appropriate to labour in a post on color vision.
It amazes me how people can look at their watch and state with such certainty that this or that happened 65 million years ago give or take a few trillion years..
I can only assume this is supposed to be humour. You seem to be suggesting there is no method science can employ to discern events in the distant past? At what date in the past do you believe science becomes ineffective?
People can not even remember their own childhoods accurately yet they want you to believe and base your reality on what they say happened 65 million years ago?
You are comparing testable physical evidence to a human's ability to remember their childhood. What exactly is your point? Who is 'they'?
Let's be honest it all sounds very clever and precise but the truth is no one really has a clue and are just wildly stabbing in the dark.
Are you being honest? Which bit is wildly stabbing in the dark specifically? The date? Evolutionary developments due to extinction events? Please do explain. Perhaps if you could actually make a specific point or raise an specific objection the board might be able to understand your viewpoint?
GodZoo - "People can not even remember their own childhoods accurately yet they want you to believe and base your reality on what they say happened 65 million years ago?"
The collection and analyis of forensic evidence, mathematical probablility, and an in-depth understanding of biology and its processes are not the same as the study of memory.
GodZoo - "... one really has a clue and are just wildly stabbing in the dark."
Seriously?
You think that the astronomers, mathemeticians, paleontologists, and geologists who've dedicated their careers to examining the evidence, crunching the numbers, and bucking social convention are just pulling this out of their asses?
'Cause that's kind of insulting.
