"those subjects never rely on bullshit baffles brain’s techniques."
Why do you feel that books on evolution use this technique, seeing as how you admittedly haven't read any?
would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?
by ExBethelitenowPIMA 196 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
SydBarrett
-
TonusOH
Good to see you back, pete.
-
cofty
chemistry, calculus and any other deep subjects can be explained in clear concise ways that won’t have two groups of scientists having different views
What biologists deny common ancestry - ones that aren't fundamentalist xtians that is?
There are not two conflicting sides in the scientific question of the common ancestry of all living things, There is science on one side and Bronze Age myths on the other. You can only hold on to the myths by refusing to engage with the science. That isn't agnosticism it's wilful ignorance of the proof.
The vast majority of theists accept the science and find a way to reconcile it with their faith.
My reasons for believing the earth is a globe are many
And the reasons to believe common ancestry are every bit as compelling. You just don't know it because you haven't bothered to read even a single book on the subject and you are shackled by years of Watchtower creationist indoctrination. You are fooling yourself when you claim to be agnostic.
-
peacefulpete
If I may be so bold as to say, ExBethelite, you might dislike the taste of the boxed wine at the JW table but you are still hooked.
-
ExBethelitenowPIMA
Cofty “ What biologists deny common ancestry - ones that aren't fundamentalist xtians that is?
There are not two conflicting sides in the scientific question of the common ancestry of all living things,”
The two groups that can’t agree are those that think common ancestry proves intelligence and those that think it proves chance?
How can you not see this?
The more scientific discoveries there are some say this is proof of intelligence and some old school say see this is proof of chance
-
ExBethelitenowPIMA
peacefulpetean hour ago
If I may be so bold as to say, ExBethelite, you might dislike the taste of the boxed wine at the JW table but you are still hooked
-
I don’t have to drink it though, I can still go to the party and choose to drink something I like😁
-
ExBethelitenowPIMA
Many more young scientists are now coming out and saying the more we discover about DNA and how amazing biology is, this is far more intelligent design than anything humans can currently do.
The old school group are saying the more we discover the more it proves chance as the origin.
The big question is could something that happened by chance be replicated in a controlled environment?
Could scientists make a new organic life and a new DNA from scratch? Not yet they can’t replicate what we are told happened by chance. This points towards a greater intelligence than humans currently have.
-
cofty
The two groups that can’t agree are those that think common ancestry proves intelligence and those that think it proves chance
Please tell me about all these biologists who conclude that all life descended from a common ancestor over millions of years who reject natural processes as a cause. I'm NOT talking about the origin of life or the origin of the universe.
Who are these 'many more young scientists' of whom you speak. Where are their thousands of peer-reviewed papers showing that ID is necessary to explain common ancestry? (there are none - not even one)
Why do you keep repeating the word 'chance'? The elegance of evolution by natural selection is its explanation of how complexity was achieved without the need for 'pure chance'. You cannot successfully criticise something that you have not begun to understand. Again we are ONLY talking about common ancestry - NOT abiogenesis or cosmic origins.
Please stop changing the subject. My only point here is that every living thing descended from a common ancestor over millions of years through unguided natural processes. Good luck finding any biologist - who doesn't have a fundamentalist religious agenda - who disagrees with this simple fact. It is literally as well established in science as the shape of the planet.
Here are 3.8 million academic papers discussing the evidence for evolution by natural selection. They are written by scientists of all ages. There is no disagreement between 'old school' and younger biologists. That is a lie that fundamentalists like to tell each other without any evidence.
Going back to your OP you advocated for 'informed ignorance'. Apart from that being an oxymoron, my point is that in order to maintain that position you have to make a lot of effort and tell yourself endless lies in order to stay in that state.
-
ExBethelitenowPIMA
“Please tell me about all these biologists who conclude that all life descended from a common ancestor over millions of years who reject natural processes as a cause. I'm NOT talking about the origin of life or the origin of the universe.”
This is the problem Cofty. We are talking about different things. 😁 I am talking about if intelligence was involved or not.
I don’t think any of them are not talking about natural cause. So we are in agreement 👍 I’m talking about the many scientists and biologists who wonder if intelligence was involved or was it all purely chance.
You talk as if these ones are denying science all together, not at all. Just wondering if intelligence was involved or not that’s all
-
cofty
Okay please tell me about these biologists who believe intelligence was necessarily involved in the evolution of all life from a common ancestor. I gave you 3.8 million papers that say otherwise.
I am asserting that these 'young scientists' are a figment of your imagination.
Why are you STILL proposing a false dichotomy between intelligence and 'chance' despite my explaining this countless times. It's as if you have never read any books on natural selection ... oh wait!