Origin of Life

by cofty 405 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cofty

    John_Mann you are comparing two different things. Population mathematics are very complex and yield different results depending on what exactly you measure.

    There is no possibility I will be taking the time to explain the maths but check out this Wiki article if your interested....

    I'm puzzled about what your point is. Are you saying nobody had a "soul" until 3000 years ago?

  • cofty
    Adam and Eve lived about 4 thousand years BC. - John_Mann
    These more realistic models estimate that the most recent common ancestor of mankind lived as recently as about 3,000 years ago - John_Mann's evidence

    Which is it John 3000 or 6000?

    The genealogies of the gospels are one of the best examples of biblical contradictions that cannot be reconciled.

  • John_Mann

    I said the Genesis account does not have a scientific precision.

    But the concept of a common ancestor just a few thousand years ago it's not unscientific.

    And you're very wrong about the MRCA of humans had existed just millions of years ago.

    There's the bottleneck effect too...

  • John_Mann

    "l'm puzzled about what your point is. Are you saying nobody had a "soul" until 3000 years ago?"

    That's the Christian position. The first humanoid received a soul about 4,000 BC. And it became the firs human with a soul.

    This is an interesting psychology theory about it:


  • slimboyfat

    Excellent post John Mann. I was going to make a similar post but I doubted it was worth the effort. I've been reading books by Raymond Brown recently, and he is so reasonable it almost makes you want to become a Catholic - except for the teaching on sex which is abysmal.

    It's important to keep in mind that former JWs, and Dawkins-type atheists often have a very particular kind of Christian believer in mind when building refutations. The Catholic Church and many other churches (representative the vast majority of Christians) accept evolution and do not see science and faith in competition.

    It's interesting on this thread to see the various strategies Cofty has used to make my points seem extreme when actually they are mainstream. He claims I don't like science. It's actually his view that scientific discoveries can tell us about the likelihood of God which is a marginal philosophical position. He has used insults instead of arguments, introduced a flat earth (again) and postmodernism, when postmodernism has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, or the mainstream view I promoted that science, philosophy and theology deal with different areas of knowledge.

    The idea, popular among reductionist materialists such as Dawkins, is that science is on the march, and is vanquishing religion. It disproved creation in the nineteenth century and soon it will disprove that God is the origin of life. What will believers do then, Cofty asks? What excuses will believers have left?

    But this misunderstands what science is. Science can tell us how something probably happened. It cannot tell us why it happened or its meaning. Scientists may, or probably will, one day discover how life started. But this is not one inch closer to proving that God didn't do it.

    Yes it does! Of course it does! If it happened all by itself, then this proves God had nothing to do with the origin of life! How can you be so thick! (Comes the retort)

    But really it proves nothing of the sort. All it proves is that the universe is consistent in observing patterns and laws all the way back. Whether God instigated these laws, or used them for his purposes, science cannot tell us one way or another. Using scientific discoveries to try to figure out a God or not-God is wrong headed. It's using the wrong tool for the stated purpose. It's like expecting to be able to measure the temperature of water with a ruler.

    I am not representing an extreme philosophical position here, and has nothing to do with postmodernism or a flat earth. These are rhetorical strategies along with the insults. It is a mainstream view that science and philosophy deal with different kinds of questions.

    It is actually Cofty who holds an extreme and marginal philosophical position: scientific and materialist reductionism. In this view only matter exists and science is the only true source of knowledge. Other kinds of knowledge are collapsed into science by various means. In its most extreme forms this marginal world view even claims that branches of philosophy such as ethics can be collapsed and redefined as science. Yes Cofty actually believes that ethical problems have a definite scientific solution. (He stated this on the forum a couple of heads ago) You or I might think euthanasia or abortion, for example, are complex ethical dilemmas that admit a number of perspectives and solutions. Not for an adherent ofscientific reductionism. All such issues have definitive scientific answers which can be discovered. That's how extreme his claims for science are. So if we want to talk about flat earth type nonsense that's where we could start.

  • John_Mann

    Well I have no objections with the scientific theory about the origin of life. The theory of evolution is the most beautiful theory in science and it explains a lot in different areas (economics, languages, etc).

    We catholics believe God created directly the universe (Big Bang theory was made by a Catholic priest BTW).

    And about 6 thousand years ago God created the first soul in one of the several races of humanoids (following the pattern of "chosen people") . Afterwards this race had a very obvious advantage and killed or/and assimilated the other humanoids. God directly creates every soul since then.

    And we believe this soul is immortal and have some conditions to achieve while in this animal body (with a mortal animal soul too).

    Sorry my broken English. I have about three languages stored in my mind.

  • Phizzy

    "Modern man", no "humanoid", was using Agriculture, living in cities, worshiping in Temples thousands of year before 6,000 year ago.

    Why did god ignore these people until your date ?. For people they surely were, of if you prefer, "souls".

  • John_Mann

    There's a psychological theory that says these people maybe not were conscious at all. The modern human behaviour is very recent in history.

    Read the link about Bicameralism in my previous post.


  • John_Mann

    Yes, my mistake to call them humanoids. They were anatomically modern humans.

    And I'm advocating just one catholic tradition about putting an approximate date to the MRCA.

    Some traditions of thought says the dates can be stretched and not be the literal genealogy in Gospels.

    But the concept of humankind having a common ancestor who received a soul directly from the Creator of the universe is the main belief.

  • cofty
    All it proves is that the universe is consistent in observing patterns and laws all the way back. Whether God instigated these laws, or used them for his purposes, science cannot tell us one way or another. - SBF the Strawman Slayer

    I have NEVER said otherwise. Many times I have commended the position of theistic evolutionists like Francis Collins and Ken Miller.

    I think their beliefs are provably wrong for other reasons but NOT for scientific ones.

    Nowhere in this thread have I suggested what you are claiming and yet more than half the thread consists of your phony arguments and others refuting them.

    Once again you are congratulating yourself for attacking a straw man. Troll

Share this