would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?

by ExBethelitenowPIMA 196 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • ExBethelitenowPIMA

    Cofty I have read many books promoting chance evolution that one chap wanted me to read. I remember all the arguments about apes evolved into humans and I read the books and I’ve listened to countless podcasts and interviews by so called experts. I definitely look at both sides.

    As I’ve said I’m agnostic which means I’m open to the possibility that the universe started by chance. But as far as I can see there still is no undeniable proof of this. The missing link still has not been found but if it ever is then I will not be agnostic anymore as now there would be proof. Any so called proof people like you present can be debunked.

    Its just the same with intelligence as the origin of the universe. All the so called proof presented could be argued against.

    At the end of the day people believe what they want to believe it’s very hard to remain objective.

    I suspect if you are really honest with yourself you would say yes it’s true I tend to lean towards believing what I want to believe. If you were absolutely honest you would realise cognitive dissidence does make you think you have found proof of chance as the start when it’s not accurate

  • smiddy3


  • cofty

    How can someone claim to have studied the scientific evidence for evolution and then refer to " the missing link'?

    Stop conflating biological evolution with abiogenesis with the origin of the universe. It makes it blatantly obvious you have not got the first clue.

    Still waiting for you to name one single book. I call bullshit.

  • TonusOH

    By the way, biologists do not claim that humans evolved from apes, but that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. The "argument" that humans evolved from apes is not an argument. It is not a view promoted by evolutionary biologists. They do not make this claim.

    As for missing links, the term is a misnomer, IMO. It implies that evolution has stopped, as opposed to being an ongoing process (in which case every species is a link). Thus, there will always be missing links, since it's unlikely that we'll ever find every single species that has existed. But that doesn't mean that evolutionary lineages have not been extensively mapped, per https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms

  • FFGhost
    I remember all the arguments about apes evolved into humans and I read the books

    I'm curious now too.

    Can you give me the name of the book which outlines the process whereby "apes evolved into humans"? Title, author, ISBN number?


  • ThomasCovenant

    ExBethelitenowPIMA, formerly known as InDoubtBigTime, you said three months ago,

    ''I haven’t read any books on biological evolution''

    ( I don't know how to link)

  • cofty

    Thanks TC I knew I wasn't imagining it.

    What was the topic title please?

  • slimboyfat

    In current nomenclature humans are a kind of ape, as are various of their ancestors such as Homo erectus. So I don’t see a problem with saying that humans evolved from apes from an evolutionary perspective. Humans (a kind ape) evolved from Homo erectus (another kind of ape). It’s been scientific practice to use “Ape” as the umbrella term since the 1960s.


  • cofty

    Our common ancestor with other non- human hominids was hominoid. Ape is not a useful term in an cladistic context, it is more appropriate when referring to extant primates.

  • ThomasCovenant

Share this