by cofty 71 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I don't usually read the evolution threads but I did this one and I just wanted to post and say - abiogenesis - poof! mind blown!! Whaaaaaaat? We don't know how life actually started but just how it changed once It began? WTF man, I had no idea.
Thank you board.
In my story, try proving with evidence to the man eating a hot dog in a Chinese restaurant that he committed the crime
We don't know how life actually started but just how it changed once It began? WTF man, I had no idea.
Actually scientists do know a great deal about the origins of life. Why is it surprising that there are things science hasn't discovered yet?
@Fisherman,
OK, I agree with you there. It is very well possible that some people who draw a conclusion on a specific subject may not have knowledge (yet) of all the facts, and draw the wrong conclusion.
I'll add to that that sometimes people refuse to investigate or acknowledge facts they have knowledge about.
In your example, the detectives might skip checking the video footage from the restaurant, and thus withhold themselves from knowing the fact the guy was eating a hotdog there. Or the suspect guy's wife found a bloody shirt in the laundry, but doesn't report it to the police because she just can't believe her husband is or might be a killer. She explains away the fact of the bloody shirt because she has an emotional block stopping her from adding that fact to her knowledge, or to the combined knowledge of all people including the detectives.
Following my question for you is, which of the two groups below are likely to have access to and less emotional blocks regarding the theory of evolution:
(Note that accepting evolution has nothing to do with rejecting any gods)
As for the possible (non)existence of any gods: we'll presume innocence until proven guilty. Thus, until any gods' existence is proven at least somewhat beyond reasonable doubt, we must assume there are none.
In my story, try proving with evidence to the man eating a hot dog in a Chinese restaurant that he committed the crime
Your analogy glosses over the real world situation.
If the man was really eating a hotdog in the restaurant, there will be evidence of that.
His DNA and fingerprints in the restaurant, people who saw him there, security camera's, hotdog in his stomach, etc. etc.
In that case there's reaonable doubt that he is the perpetrator.
Of course, if he just claims he was in the restaurant, but there's no evidence to prove it, and much compelling evidence to the contrary, why believe him? He may be lying or be (very) confused.
Similary, if people just claim something based on their specific interpretation of a religious book, why believe them if they present no evidence to backup their claims, and there's much evidence to the contrary?
Without evidence, these claims are useless. At best, they are just opinions. At worst, they are factual incorrect as shown by available evidence.
Cofty, I posted in a somewhat lighthearted way about something I learned and that's how you repsond? Too serious man, too serious.
TheListener - Sarcasm doesn't tend to come across as such in a brief post on a forum. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
Just as a general suggestion for those on the board, if you are posting sarcastic comments, I suggest placing them between the following delimiters:
<sarcasm> write text here </sarcasm>.
That way, there will be no confusion.
@Heaven,
<sarcasm>Yeah right, as if anyone would get that</sarcasm>
Anders said: @Heaven,
<sarcasm>Yeah right, as if anyone would get that</sarcasm>
