Confusing Opinions with Facts

by cofty 71 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Anders Andersen
    Anders Andersen


    It must be said: your post above is reasonable and makes some sense, regardless of you being tired :-)

    The process of evolution as an explanation for the observed facts (the facts that cofty presents in his series of posts) might be subject to change and revision.

    Highly theoretically speaking it might even be that some day so many other facts come to light that a completely new theory to explain all observed facts is accepted. That is how the scientific process works.

    However, there are so ridiculous many observed facts that all support the theory of evolution that it is highly unlikely (as in virtually impossible) that it is wrong. Hence that scientists, who are cautious doubters by nature and profession, dare to label the theory a fact.

    Are there any observed facts that contradict the theory of evolution? If they haven't been found by now, what is the chance they will be found in future?

    On the other hand, we have the folks that say 'God did it'.

    Those that claim 6 literal creation days have to explain away a massive amount of contradicting evidence by uttering a confused non-explanation: 'it's a miracle, God did it anyway'.

    Those that claim some sort of intelligent design or guided evolution have (while their ideas cannot be tested and thus can't be disproved) zero, nada, nil evidence to support their claims either.

    So while I get the distinction you make between fact and theory, there is no practical application for that difference when speaking about evolution. That theory is so well established that we might as well call it fact.

    And I always wonder why people who can't accept evolution because they think the evidence doesn't point there, accept God as a fact while there is no evidence pointing there at all..?

  • Anders Andersen
    Anders Andersen
    or if a person witnesses something that happened and is asked to testify in Court about what that person knows is a true or fact-which is not an opinion, the existence of Jehovah for instance.
    1. It's well established that eyewitnesses in court rooms are highly unreliable. Without evidence to back up their claims, I would hesitate to just accept the testimony of an eyewitness, especially in a confusing case with high stakes. (There is no verifiable or measurable evidence Jehovah or any other gods exist)
    2. If multiple independent eyewitnesses can testify and corroborate the same observed facts, I would be more inclined to accept that testimony.
    3. If multiple witnesses exist, who all contradict each other, I would most likely not accept any of what they say (there are many contradicting testimonies regarding the number, names and natures of gods).
    4. If multiple witnesses exist, with the same story, but they had motive and opportunity to get their stories to match, I would likely not acrept their testimony if not backed up by evidence (within a single religion or group of religions, people have had centuries to compare notes. There motive is not wanting to be wrong).

    Jehovah does not exist. Prove me wrong in a way that the courts would accept.

  • Vidqun

    Simon: The sum total of facts: 1) Archaeology; 2) History; 3) Natural order of things; 4) Linguistics; 5) Bible Prophecy, etc. Perhaps I consider facts that a lot of people will choose to ignore. But if I put all of these together, then there are certain inevitable conclusions that I have to make. A favorite saying of mine: Where there is smoke, there is fire.

    Konceptual99, Ray Franz suggested that it might not have been a worldwide flood, but a regional flood. He bases his conclusion on the Hebrew word "earth" which could mean "land." That would cancel out all of the Australian animal problems.

    Hebrew earth: ’êrêts

    —1. ground, earth.

    —2. piece of ground.

    —3. territory, country.

    —4. the whole of the land, the earth (HALOT).

  • Anders Andersen
    Anders Andersen
    Where there is smoke, there is fire.

    Sounds reasonable if you already know fire exists and creates smoke.

    Without having first observed multiple fires creating smoke, this saying would never have been much popular.

    As they say in some parts of the world:

    Where there is smoke, there's a dragon. We know because our parents told us, and it says so in this old book...

  • konceptual99
    Konceptual99, Ray Franz suggested that it might not have been a worldwide flood, but a regional flood. He bases his conclusion on the Hebrew word "earth" which could mean "land." That would cancel out all of the Australian animal problems.

    That's not the position of the WT society or what the bible says. Both are adamant it was a global flood.

    You are seemingly prepared to moderate your interpretation of the bible over something that even your cognitive dissonance can't reconcile regarding the flood, how about doing the same with creation or the development of homo sapiens?

  • jwfacts

    I think it needs to keep being reiterated that evolution is different to abiogenesis. The origins of life are far less understood but there is amble evidence for evolution. It seems few people understand the difference.

  • Vidqun

    There is a measure of cognitive dissonance at work in all those that believe in evolution, being the origin of life. I believe that if there is a god, and if he is fair and just, he will clear things up in his own time. Allow me to use the hypothetical case of prophecy, specifically Rev. 11:3-12. The JW interpretation of this prophecy is that it happened during the Great War (1914-1918). This is indeed a long shot. Even if one interprets the vision as purely symbolic, one will have a hard time foisting above interpretation on the vision. But let us say, we interpret the vision in a more literal sense:

    3 And I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy a thousand two hundred and sixty days dressed in sackcloth.

    4 These are [symbolized by] the two olive trees and the two lampstands and are standing before the Lord of the earth.

    5 And if anyone wants to harm them, fire issues forth from their mouths and devours their enemies; and if anyone should want to harm them, in this manner he must be killed.

    6 These have the authority to shut up heaven that no rain should fall during the days of their prophesying, and they have authority over the waters to turn them into blood and to strike the earth with every sort of plague as often as they wish.

    7 And when they have finished their witnessing, the wild beast that ascends out of the abyss will make war with them and conquer them and kill them.

    8 And their corpses will be on the broad way of the great city which is in a spiritual sense called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was also impaled.

    9 And those of the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations will look at their corpses for three and a half days, and they do not let their corpses be laid in a tomb.

    10 And those dwelling on the earth rejoice over them and enjoy themselves, and they will send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those dwelling on the earth.

    11 And after the three and a half days spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet, and great fear fell upon those beholding them.

    12 And they heard a loud voice out of heaven say to them, Come on up here. And they went up into heaven in the cloud, and their enemies beheld them (Rev. 11:3-12 NWT).

    If these two prophets do make their appearance on the world scene, effecting miracles, how many will believe that they are from God? Are they using delusion or special effects or are they the real thing? Even Witnesses will find the above hard to fathom, because their GB says otherwise. I believe this prophecy is to occur in the near future. If I am wrong, the joke’s on me. If I am right, then the joke’s on all skeptics out there. Interestingly, the Chapter ends off:

    18 But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time for the dead to be judged, and to give [their] reward to your slaves the prophets and to the holy ones and to those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth (Rev. 11:18 NWT).

  • Anders Andersen
    Anders Andersen

    Care to explain why/how you see that cognitive dissonance at work in people accepting evolution?
    Is it also at work in religious people who accept evolution?

  • konceptual99

    As jwfacts just repeated for the millionth time on this forum, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

    Regardless, how can one have cognitive dissonance regarding evolution? CD occurs when one is trying to rationalise two contradictory positions. What evidence is there that there is a divine creator who is actively interested in humanity? I would have to accept that before any CD regarding evolution could even begin to set in.

    The reality is that ones like me who did once accept there was a creator and he had a plan had to shake of this belief because the weight of evidence belies this assertion. I fail to understand how an open, logical and reasonable evaluation of the evidence would result in science rather than superstition being the loser in a CD war.

  • Vidqun

    Abiogenesis aside, I struggle with the concept: "From fish to man." Cognitive dissonance in a big way. It is f*#%ing impossible.

Share this