Confusing Opinions with Facts

by cofty 71 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

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

    when I type it in to Google it comes up

    noun: abiogenesis
    1. the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
  • cofty
    I struggle with the concept: "From fish to man." - Vidqun

    This thread is an appeal to posters to stop confusing personal opinions with evidence.

    You think your personal incredulity, based on a lack of effort to study the evidence, is an argument against evolution.

    Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point.

  • Vidqun

    Glad to be of service. Reminds me of something I read in a public bathroom: "We aim to please. Please steady your aim."

  • cofty
    My question to those that equate the theory of gravity with the theory of evolution is how and why are they equal in terms of probability? - Fisherman

    Anybody who is familiar with the evidence, and who does not have a religious agenda, will be in no doubt they are equally certain.

    In fact there is more confusion about gravity than there is about the fact of evolution.

    Evidence has no part in the thinking of evolution deniers. I have yet to find one who had made the evidence to become familiar with the evidence. Just yesterday I was talking a JW at a trolley who claimed to have read "lots of books" presenting the evidence for evolution. Snowbird made the same claim a few days ago. Neither of them could name even one. Both of them showed by their comments that they knew absolutely nothing about it.

    Fisherman, Ucant, etc you have all demonstrated many times that your knowledge of the subject is approaching zero. And yet you think your religious opinions on the topic is as valid as facts. This is the topic.

    Cofty, does it not have a lot to do with the interpretation of the facts? You believe in evolution because that is how you interpret the facts. I believe in creation, because that is how I interpret the facts. - Vidqun

    No. There are zero facts that even begin to support creation.

    Imagine you are on a jury. There are multiple examples of DNA and forensic evidence against the accused. There are CCTV images, phone records fingerprints, clothing fibres, the murder weapon was found in his jacket and stolen items from the victim's house were in his pockets when he was caught outside the house etc etc.

    In the jury room your decision is "He seems like a nice guy, I can't believe he did it. That's just how I interpret the facts" Then it turns out that despite your denials you had your earplugs in during the entire trial listening to podcasts of christian radio.

    This is exactly analogous to your position on evolution.

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

    I did too...then I read Richard Dawkins book "Climbing Mount Improbable" really opened my eyes and since then I've consumed many more books...

    If you think "one minute fish"..."next minute man" sounds strange...but do research and the answers are there and are far more credible than you currently think.

  • Vidqun

    No, according to my knowledge of the facts of Anatomy: Cytology, Embryology, Histology, Osteology, Arthrology, Myology, Angiology, Neurology, Splanchnology, also Physiology and Microbiology, I cannot support the notion of modern evolution. As we have touched upon it in a previous thread, the term "evolution" is a misnomer. Most of the time what people call "evolution" can be explained by the process of "adaptation," which has been pre-programmed in the cells of living organisms. Only with the help of genetic engineers and gene splicing will the species of the organism be changed into a new species. Herein the concept of creation is clearly demonstrated.

  • Giles Gray
    Giles Gray


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

    I empathise with such sentiments. Have felt the same myself in the past. What changed my mind was looking into the fossil record of whales.

    The evidence suggests that whales and dolphins evolved from a group of mammals that lived on land known as the mesonychids.

    The fossil record can demonstrate the gradual evolution from land animal to sea creature.

    But the fact is that vestigial legs are found in every whale and dolphin.

    This was verified on a trip to the Natural History Museum where I took pictures of every example of modern day whale and dolphin.

    The facts are plain and simple. Fish with legs in them. No cognitive dissonance. Just substantiated evidence.

    I wouldn't have believed it unless I had seen it. Now I have seen the evidence. Surely that now must be factual?

  • cofty
    according to my knowledge of the facts of Anatomy: Cytology, Embryology, Histology, Osteology, Arthrology, Myology, Angiology, Neurology, Splanchnology, also Physiology and Microbiology,

    You think your knowledge excuses you from having to consider the actual evidence.

    Once again it's opinions v facts

  • konceptual99

    To be fair Ucanthome, I should have been more specific to say the theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. The theory of evolution concentrates on the how life has developed but presupposes the existence of life. Of course there is a relationship in the broader context of a discussion about the existence and involvement of a creator but in terms of this thread it's the theory of evolution that presents deists and creationists with the question of what they are prepared to accept as fact or hold an opinion on.

  • Fisherman
    Anders Andersen Than you for your kind rsepsonse to my post.

    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)

    The point that I was trying to show is that a knower of a fact knows the fact and such known fact to him does not change from being a fact because he cannot prove it to others or because others do not believe him or because he does not know the difference between fact and belief or because he does not know the difference between believing something is a fact or he actually struck a rock with hammer. A person can know facts that others do not ( "You do not know all of the facts,"-for example)

    "A fact is something that truly exists or happens or something that has actual existence." It is not contingent upon being believed or proven.

    Case in point: It is a fact that a man was eating hot dog in a Chinese restaurant in the US at the exact time a crime was committed at another location, fact is he did not do it but only he knows this fact and he cannot prove it..The man is accused of the crime and no one believes his story, the evidence proves him guilty inspite of the fact that he was not even at the location where the crime took place at the time the crime was taking place. The truth is that the man is innocent but everyone is convinced from the evidence that the man is guilty. Anyway, the man knows he dd not do it, also, if you want proof of God's existence, order a hot dog. (Just kidding.)

Share this