I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild 532 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cofty
    cofty
    simple proteins being charged RNA to DNA all center around an event to which caused the chaining to begin life. - Hadriel

    I'm sorry Hadriel but that is yet another sentence that makes absolutely no sense. As in the previous thread you just cobble together random words and phrases - you too Ruby.

    What part of the origin of the first cell is it that you insist can't be known? Is it all of it or one specific stage?

    The transition from RNA to DNA is one of the simplest changes in a long and complex transition from geochemistry to biochemistry. Both of the two changes that are required would happen spontaneously in a hydrothermal vent which also provides an abundance of metallic catalysts.

    I wonder if your problem comes from the idea that life originated in an "organic soup". It almost certainly didn't.

    Do you have any interest at all in the answer? I think I will start a thread on abiogenesis soon.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Otherwise how do you explain convergence and human intelligence/consciousness?

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/does-evolutionary-convergence-prove-god/

  • cofty
    cofty

    "otherwise"?

  • Ruby456
    Ruby456

    slim thanks - some of the reasons I don't agree with either Dawkins or Morris - we have to discard the idea that humans stand at the pinnacle. Also from what I have been reading recently human intelligence and consciousness have different histories and this makes sense

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Of course I agree. Why should we suppose our view of reality is more truthful than a dolphin for example? Douglas Adams pointed that out in his inimitable way. The new atheists don't have a fraction of his wit or intelligence.

    I would mention the favourite subject about the earth not being round to a worm, except to say that it might neither be round to a super intelligence that grasps other dimensions. Wait for the typical anti-worm rhetoric.

    But I think Morris makes good points about convergence. Because if there is a plan there are still different ways of describing it. Mary Midgley says it's like reality is strained through a device that produces a certain form. Back to Plato!

  • Viviane
    Viviane
    Hadriel in science they don't like to attribute changes to unique events and tend to keep on pursuing explanations that are more systematic. so here you will meet a lot of resistance.

    A perfect example of Viv's Law.

  • Viviane
    Viviane
    Why should we suppose our view of reality is more truthful than a dolphin for example?

    Is that supposed to be a meaningful question? I assure you it isn't.

  • Hadriel
    Hadriel

    The hard and fast line folks crack me up.

    A good scientist will consider all possibilities not just the ones convenient for him.

    1. Do I think we will know what this charge was that began the proto-chaining of life in my lifetime? NO

    2. Because we cannot define what this charge was does that mean God did it? NO

    3. Can we be absolute in our resolve as to whether Evolution, Creation, Crevolution are the result of this charge without knowing what in fact it was? NO

    Outside of item one which is simply my opinion, if you disagree with either 2 or 3 you're not being honest and only considering possibilities which fit your narrative.

  • never a jw
    never a jw

    Why should we suppose our view of reality is more truthful than a dolphin for example?

    who cares about absolute "truth", whatever that means to you. The dolphin is not likely to travel to the moon, or experience roller coaster thrills, or have humans jump out of the water to entertain an audience full of dolphins. Sure, the life of a dolphin must be interesting, but it's no match for the myriad of possibilities available to humans. This business of truth/false should be approached as a practical matter that provides a common frame of reference to settle our disagreements.


  • Viviane
    Viviane
    A good scientist will consider all possibilities not just the ones convenient for him.

    Not true. You're a perfect example of Viv's Law.

    Outside of item one which is simply my opinion, if you disagree with either 2 or 3 you're not being honest and only considering possibilities which fit your narrative.

    Viv's law in action. You really need to start with this thread...https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/420420001/quality-thinking-warning-long-post-ahead

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit