by cofty 405 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
about 6 thousand years ago God created the first soul in one of the several races of humanoids - JM
That is totally insane and ignores tons and tons of archaeological and anthropological evidence. It is on par with the anti-scientific cultish drivel of the Mormon Church and Scientology.
This is an interesting psychology theory about it:
Bicameralism has absolutely no support. It is NOT a theory.
That's the Christian position. The first humanoid received a soul about 4,000 BC. And it became the firs human with a soul.
Evidence please.
I said the Genesis account does not have a scientific precision.
Genesis has no science at all.
But the concept of a common ancestor just a few thousand years ago it's not unscientific.
Evidence, please.
There's the bottleneck effect too...
Funny you mention that. The same way we know there have been genetic bottlenecks is the way we know ~ when the last MRCA was (and it wasn't a few thousand years ago). Your argument refutes itself.
Yes, my mistake to call them humanoids. They were anatomically modern humans
Clearly not, if they had something very different about them. Your god started bestiality, according to your argument.
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.
In point of fact, JM is using a poor understanding of science, cherry picking and quote mining to support his Christianity.
It's actually his view that scientific discoveries can tell us about the likelihood of God which is a marginal philosophical position.
Well that's just a lie. And one you've been called out on several times at this point.
But this misunderstands what science is. Science can tell us how something probably happened. It cannot tell us why it happened or its meaning.
A perfect example of YOU not understanding science OR language. You are saying "why" in the sense of "reason for this" or "purpose" for something. Science asks "why" in the sense of "how". It doesn't seek to assign meaning or explain purpose.
Please, for the love of all that's holy, stop talking about things you've no clue about.
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)
The retort is that what you wrote is not Cofty's position. You've been made aware of that over and over. Please stop lying.
I am not representing an extreme philosophical position here
Oh, no you aren't. You're not representing any philosophical position. Philosophy is the practice of improving our thinking. That's definitely not what's going on.
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.
Again, not true, something you've been informed of.
Also that's not what materialism is. Seriously, do you just pick words out of a book and use them without knowing what they are?
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.
Well, there it is. The dumbest thing I've read all day, and I've already read a lot of dumb things. This is so far off base, it's hard to tell if you're outright lying, trolling, that thick or a combination of all of the above.
That is some serious weapons grade bullshit you wrote.
Once again, I must be totally thick or something because I have NO IDEA of what anyone is talking about....
and I'm sure I'm not the only one.........................
Cofty.. I've understood some of what you've said, Memphis and Landy too.. but that's it i'm afraid but everyone else.... no...
I'm interested in these type of threads and I want to understand the way different people see things but maybe my brain is just too simple (perhaps I'm not far enough away from those 'ape ancestors' LOL) the language and arguements used are just way over my head. Think I'd rather just stick to David Attenborourgh and Brian Cox....
I'm still a believer and it's going to take a lot more than this thread to convince me otherwise.
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
Cofty you say I misrepresent you. You say you don't in fact believe that scientific discoveries can answer questions about God. Yet at various times in the thread you made statements that suggest otherwise. Not least in the opening post.
How do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
If you don't think origin of life research is a challenge to theism, then why expect theists to come up with a response?
Firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god. There is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
So science proves God didn't do it or it doesn't prove it, which is it?
Also the excuse doesn't work...
On the one hand you say that a scientific explanation for the origin of life would leave theists with questions to answer, that their various "excuses" wouldn't work, and that it would prove there is no "life force" from God.
On the other hand you say that any suggestion you are using science to settle the issue of God is a compete misrepresentation.
You are trying to have your cake and eat it.
hello again.Cofty you said on page 14 that satan can never create life.Well lve got news for you he did.Maybe not satan himself but many of his mates did.lnfact life came about from an inanimate being turning into an animate being.Ah thems was the days.
Cofty you say I misrepresent you. You say you don't in fact believe that scientific discoveries can answer questions about God. Yet at various times in the thread you made statements that suggest otherwise. Not least in the opening post.
Yes you still continue to misrepresent my views. But there is no possible way to correct that when the person doing the misrepresenting is doing so knowingly and deliberately.
There is no way anybody can be so staggeringly obtuse so the only possible alternative is that you are lying.
For lurkers who may be misled by SBF's dishonest tactics....
1 - Of course science has things to say that have implications of theology.
2 - Science can NEVER prove that god does not exist.
There is no contradiction in these two simple statements.
Reason, logic, common sense, reality - these things can show that the god of christian theism is a delusion but the fact of evolution and the possibility of solving abiogenesis will NOT prove there is no god..
I have NEVER said otherwise and I have told SBF that a ridiculous number of times. Viv has also explained that to you dozens of times.
SBF - My contempt with your tactics on this thread is total.
Automant - Don't post drunk
