Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

by cofty 98 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cofty

    Yet another strawman post from SBF. It is your modus operandi.

  • slimboyfat

    You seem to think that any post that questions an assumption you have made is a "straw man".

    Your opening post says most Christians have "adapted" their theology in view of evolution.

    In fact, as I pointed out, non-literal readings of Genesis by Christians greatly pre-dated Darwin. Therefore it's not terribly accurate to describe them as restrospective "adaptations". This is explained in the link I gave.

    This is obviously highly relevant. And it's not clear whether you are unaware that non-literal readings of Genesis predate Darwin, or how you reconcile this with your "adaptation" claim, since you don't bother to say.

    Instead your modus operandi is to never address the point made but accuse instead.

  • cofty

    Belief in a literal original human couple and a fall from perfection has been impacted by scientific discovery. But less so among protestant evangelicals and Muslims.

    It goes without saying that belief in human creation was not universal before Darwin. Surely everybody knows that and only smug pendants feel the need to say so?

  • The Rebel
    The Rebel

    Surely by now Slim and Cofty realize interacting on each other's threads results only in negative interaction. May I suggest a truce, Slim stays off Coftys O.Ps , and Cofty stays off Slims O.Ps ?...as an outsider I get tired of the senseless arguing, even if Slim enjoys the provocation.

  • Ruby456

    cofty and i understand one another - so hope you don't mind me interjecting now then, the rebel, I think we are both banging on about the same thing - nature is beautiful and inspiring - no deities needed

  • John_Mann
    Belief in a literal original human couple and a fall from perfection has been impacted by scientific discovery.

    No way.

    Adam and Eve being perfect is a JW concept. Cofty is a JW sola scriptura atheist.

    The age of the human MRCA is unknown. It is necessarily younger than the age of both Y-MRCA and mt-MRCA, estimated at around 200,000 years, and it may be as recent as some 3,000 years ago.


  • cofty

    I'm not going to follow that link right now John but I really hope you are not going to try to find solace in mitochondrial eve.

  • cofty

    Oh shit you really are!

    Any port in a storm.

  • cofty

    I hope this doesn't lead to 50 pages of Roman Catholic dogma about souls but it probably will.

    How fucking depressing!

  • John_Mann

    If a common ancestor of all living humans is defined as an individual who is a genealogical ancestor of all present-day people, the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for a randomly mating population would have lived in the very recent past.

    However, the random mating model ignores essential aspects of population substructure, such as the tendency of individuals to choose mates from the same social group, and the relative isolation of geographically separated groups. Here we show that recent common ancestors also emerge from two models incorporating substantial population substructure. One model, designed for simplicity and theoretical insight, yields explicit mathematical results through a probabilistic analysis. A more elaborate second model, designed to capture historical population dynamics in a more realistic way, is analysed computationally through Monte Carlo simulations. These analyses suggest that the genealogies of all living humans overlap in remarkable ways in the recent past. In particular, the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors.


Share this