Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!

by Seeker4 178 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  RAF

  If you accept this, and view it as an allegory, then why cannot god be clever enough to make a Universe that works like what we have proof for?

  Why do you limit god's abilities?

  abaddon ...
  
  I wonder if you understand what I've said? ... (Now it's like I have an idea of why Sixy didn't seem to understand too) ... You know what? I feel like I need to take at least one month of holidday in an English mothertong country, because it is the only way I would really enjoy to learn how to express myself better in english to make myself clear.

  To resume :
  
  I'M NOT AGAINST EVOLUTION - TO ME SCIENCE / EVERYTHING IS GOD (ESSENCE AT MATURITY) NO LIMIT BUT SOMETHING CLEVER WITH A SPIRIT (= ESSENCE WITH SPIRIT) AND IF IT IS EVERYTHING WE HAVE A BIT OF THIS SPIRIT IN US (really I don't know how to write this since I've tried many ways already)
  
  I've read you and for once I wondered why (since I've answered about my kind of faith and what I think about the matter) you are still throwing arguments that I'm not against and :

  Abaddon : Evolutionary theory is the only theory(which is better than a hypothesis) in town.

  This is exactly what I'm saying ... (a theory is a theory) and you must admit that it does not exclude the idea of God (maybe the kind of God that JW's are talking about) but Not the kind of God I'm thinking about ... Any books which state that we are a whole in one is actually very close to what I think we are coming from = the same thing (you think it is from a cell / I think it is essence of everything - call it God / Alpha and Omega ...) ... your right and my right to believe whatever we want but as you can see there is no real BIG difference here.

  Maybe your reason is to make arguments about believers in the bible account? (I've answered on my position on this too). I'm even more confused that this answers comes from you? So that I really have to wonder about what is understandable on what I'm saying (it's confusing) because I do understand you (but you don't understand me). Try please, because I'm over, I don't think I can write it it in an other way in the near futur (I feel quiet limited here since there is so much confusion about the way I'm trying to say what I think).
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  nice write up S4,

  So now, to hear some of these same old WTS and creationist arguments come up on this board, well it literally makes me cringe.

  totally. i understand your sentiment exactly.

  it's like some people, when they left the religion, decided to stop the process of apostacy short with the few doctrinal issues they had with the borg. really, creationism is a doctrine of the borg. they have creationist books, and are generally known as "old earth" creationists. it baffles me that people want to be close to jesus so badly, that they will actually go and make the positive step and debate defenders of evolutionary theory, when the two do not have anything to do with each other as many intelligent christians on the board have pointed out.

  you and i both left for the same reasons, if i recall correctly: evolution. i would say that if anyone wants to understand why we approach the creation vs evolution debate so directly, they need look no further than debates between WTS apologists and board members about 587 vs 607bce. and it's really as simple as that!

  the watchtower was wrong about 607. well guess what people? the watchtower was wrong about creation as well.

  word.

  tetra
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  This is exactly what I'm saying ... (a theory is a theory)

  no RAF, that is not what you are saying.

  you give the impression (don't make me go back and quote you!) that the theory of evolution is "just a theory" among many other theories.

  abaddon is saying that 'yes it is a theory, AND the ONLY theory.' (AND- this makes it AS GOOD AS A FACT whether you *continually* show up to say: "no it's not!".

  well, i am her to say to you: yes it is!

  do you understand the difference? it's what everyone in this thread has been trying to point out to you. it is a theory. no one ever said it wasn't one! we have all continually refered to it as "the theory of evolution by natural selection", and you have continually said: "it is just a theory!" as if you where enlightening us all about something that we had horribly misunderstood.

  the difference is that it is THE ONLY THEORY right now, and any competing theory would have to ADDRESS EVERYTHING THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ALREADY ADDRESSES, AND ADDRESS IT BETTER!

  and no theory even comes close.

  as good as a FACT. whether you think so or not! ....a fact outside of your opinion set. OKAY??!!

  voila!

  tetra
• 

  RAF

  Oh noooooooooo ... ok back on it

  S4 you didn't offended me you just offended yourself (in name calling) It's ok ... I didn't feel concerned anyway.
  
  I understand your "whys" but it seems that you don't really read me either (Prolog2 did understand - now that I'm thinking about it why him and not you and abaddon and Six, and Tetra and ... All which have proved to be very smart assesin many fields or just very clever ... about what I'm saying but only one got it). It's like you are still fighting the old dragon (=RELIGIOUS BELIEFS) was it the theme of this thread? Or was the theme of this thread we've got facts and that' a proof (NO IT IS NOT).
  
  The point I was making was just to admit that a therory is not a proof (you can learn about it of course it'll help). It did help me to understand that there was no real big difference in what I'm thinking about and evolution (just not on the same base from the start)

  So please forget about anger when you read (that's a good advice for me too I must admit ... I truly have a problem with self control) when you are answering to people make sure that you are answering the one who makes the argument that you want to fight against. The arguments that you wanted to fight against if I really think about it is RELIGIOUS BELIEFS / when I'm talking about spirituality / From spirit ...
  
  And one thing that I've learned in life is to never Under or Over estimate anyone ... NEVER... too young, too old, very educated or not at all ... whatever ... you never know who will come up with something very clever or strong.
• 

  RAF

  oy oy oy ...

  Tetra

  (don't make me go back and quote you!)

  just do it ! ...
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  (Prolog2 did understand - now that I'm thinking about it why him and not you and abaddon and Six, and Tetra and ... All which have proved to be very smart assesin many fields or just very clever ... about what I'm saying but only one got it)

  go to BED ALREADY!

  prolog *complimented* you.

  is that what it takes to *understand*, RAF?! ROFLMAO at you!

  you can keep it. and thanks for helping the evolutionists out in the end. i would say your comments speak volumes. just perhaps not in the way you intended.

  let's get something straight. showing up on a thread and simply saying: "YOU PROVE NOTHING", does not mean that you are right, or that biologists have shown the world nothing. i means that you have removed a finger from your ear long enough to type something out between the "LA LA LA LA LA!!!" 's.

  and, in conclusion, i leave the last word to you, since it's obvious that you MUST HAVE IT.

  take it!

  tetra
• 

  RAF

  prolog *complimented* you.

  is that what it takes to *understand*, RAF?! ROFLMAO at you!

  you can keep it. and thanks for helping the evolutionists out in the end. i would say your comments speak volumes. just perhaps not in the way you intended.

  let's get something straight. showing up on a thread and simply saying: "YOU PROVE NOTHING", does not mean that you are right, or that biologists have shown the world nothing. i means that you have removed a finger from your ear long enough to type something out between the "LA LA LA LA LA!!!" 's.

  and, in conclusion, i leave the last word to you, since it's obvious that you MUST HAVE IT.

  take it!

  tetra

  Thanks !
  I guess you only saw the compliment (I've read more than that -a complet conclusion about why we have a different opinion) did you really read him? or did you stoped understanding when you saw the compliment?
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  If there's one thing that this and a couple of other similar threads have educated me on the subject is that Science controls the facts and Thiests control the tone of this debate.

  Peace!
• 

  Abaddon

  RAF

  I wonder if you understand what I've said? ... (Now it's like I have an idea of why Sixy didn't seem to understand too) ... You know what? I feel like I need to take at least one month of holidday in an English mothertong country, because it is the only way I would really enjoy to learn how to express myself better in english to make myself clear.

  My french is limited to yes and no, "May I have xyz" and greetings/farewells. Unless you count my "'Allo 'Allo" accent. So you are the one making a conversation with us monoglots possible, don't worry about it.

  I'M NOT AGAINST EVOLUTION - TO ME SCIENCE / EVERYTHING IS GOD (ESSENCE AT MATURITY) NO LIMIT BUT SOMETHING CLEVER WITH A SPIRIT (= ESSENCE WITH SPIRIT) AND IF IT IS EVERYTHING WE HAVE A BIT OF THIS SPIRIT IN US (really I don't know how to write this since I've tried many ways already)

  I've read you and for once I wondered why (since I've answered about my kind of faith and what I think about the matter) you are still throwing arguments that I'm not against and

  I think it's the language thing; it simply seemed your argument was confusing when it was mostly the language barrier that was confusing. You are a pantheist with a Christian perspective. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheisme

  You might find this guy interesting; http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin.

  To put it in more secular terms, evolution's 'triumph' is it becoming aware of itself through the development of sentience.

  The one area I would disagree is your feeling that evolution is just a theory and therefore not proof. Well, the mechanics of solar fusion are just a theory. However, both are the only real explanation for what we see (and as we both know, this means nothing either way as regards god).

  It is like finding a dead cow in your living room, with a hole in the roof, on a day with perfect weather. One can say "my theory is this cow fell out of an airplane or something similar". I ocould then say "that's not proof", but it wouldn't mean much as short of invisable hurricanes or a telekinetic bovine developing a headache midflight, or angels pissing with you (all of which would be hypotheses), the theory is the only game in town.

  Thus perpetual insistence it is just a theory is a statement of the obvious that does nothing much other than make it seem you ARE insisting that evolution is wrong.
  

  :-)
• 

  RAF

  Abbadon :

  Now I'm even more confused :

  So the argument is that I'm insisting that evolution is wrong ... NO NO NO ... I insiste to say that stating that evolution is a proof is just as improvable as God does existe. YOU do insiste to prove that evolution is right or a proof (Sorry that I do have to insist on that, since you all atheists want to make the part of facts in evolution a proof for the entire thing) WHEN IT IS NOT (you are saying it yourself ... what should I understand from your statements : YOU BELIEVE even if you know that it is a theory.

  And you actually did understand what I've said : Exactly it looks like I'm a pantheist with a Christian perstective so we can't totally agree on the evolution process from the start and as on thing to create everything if not God in itself. (but that's what the bible is saying - Spinosa didn't bring anything new on the table).we are an all in one.

  The essence dont need links (to make something to become something else example : if not from the very start a fish to at the end become an homo sapiens sapiens - no links no way to proove that). maybe simply put it's easier to understand.

  The question would be why it's easier to believe that not even from the very start a fish can become a human step by step with no proof of any link) yes we do evoluate to accomodate ourselve to our environement it looks like it is limited (that's a fact too since there is no links prooved - so from that, this fact looks more like a proof) NO?

  And that was somehow the purpose of a thread have made something like 3 weeks ago ... and the answer was because I don't believe in God (hided behind evolution is a proof) when it's not a proof YET (is IT?) you seems to agree with that too (so it's like you desagree just to desagree) ugh ! ...

  Why I think what I'm thinkin is : we think, we have a spirit ... that with the no link makes it easier to believe in God (essence of everything)

  Sorry but I think insisting on that don't hurt ;-)))