I gues "assert" has different definitions to different people.
Mr. Webster says: v, 1: to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively
I stated that the argument from complexity is flawed and cannot be used to assert anything. Do I really have to explain this? Why would anyone cling to refuted logic to try to prove something. Another argument might work but that one does not. But technically I suppose you could assert that a circle is really a square so I stand corrected.
I assert I know what the Bible really teaches- REALLY! heh- and can prove it by referring to appropiate scriptures that build a picture on the subject.
To convince me of anything, I'd first need evidence that the bible was from god, infallible AND inerrant.
Even using only WTBTS publications, I see that's not the case. One example: the use of "Jehovah" in the "Christian Greek Scriptures" of the NWT. The Society claims to properly restore the divine name where it had been removed from manuscripts by the apostate church. Mad, if I was the Devil and I wanted to corrupt the scriptures, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't just swap the name of my arch nemesis with a title and stop there. At any rate, how do you put faith in a book that's supposedly inerrant, yet you know it's been tampered with, corrupted? What makes you so certain that it's god's word anyway?
I assert there is a Maker because of how everything, from sub-atomic particles making atoms, molecules, cells into living things that have JUST the right type of bodies to survive in the environment it is in, which is part of an Ecosystem with all the right elements- are all work together. Then expand OUT!
I felt the same way before I examined natural selection. It very cleanly explains why living things have JUST the right type of bodies to survive in their environment.
Ever see an explosion where the particles settle into organization?
The watch-parts-in-a-box argument was refuted yesterday. I also haven't seen god create man out of dust.
We have it with the Solar System; planets in PERFECT orbits (altho scientist theorize that millions of years (who can argue with THAT?) later, one planet may be pulled into the sun, or the sun will go nova, or...... the beat goes on.
Ever study how even the tilt of the axis on earth is crucila to life?????
Yeah, I used that point in my talk on Creation years ago. Fascinating, but doesn't prove a creator.
But then- YOU are the Authority on Science.
That's absurd. I'm cutting my teeth on a subject in which I'll never understand .00000001%. But, unlike you, faith does not require me to "be right." So I can admit that I'm ignorant and have the intellectual honesty to put bias aside and continue my search without fearing a bipolar god will punish me by with-holding some magnificent post-apocalyptic reward.
Choose wisely how you look at the facts- and what conclusions you drawn from them.
Google the scientific method and critical thinking. Removing bias is very important in establishing any judgment. Think of a jury selection process and the efforts to eliminate potential jurors who may have bias from the pool.
What is your method to ensure there's no self-deception or prejudice interfering with your review of facts... and the conclusions you draw from them?
I tire of this discussion; it's worse that religious debates; at least the Bible is common ground with 'Christians'! With science, one only has a limited number of facts on a subject, many theories (many STATED as 'fact'), and the opinion of scientists often slanting their research to get funding.
Translation: "I start threads and sometimes I try to piss people off but this one isn't going so well. I don't know the first thing about science and evolution so I can't really build a good case against it. My logic seems solid at first but these people keep exposing holes in my fallacious arguments. I don't WANT to educate myself on anything else but they keep trying to get me to think different than I'm used to. There's too much reason and logic in this thread. No matter. I believe what I believe, dammit. And I want to go back to discussing beliefs based on FAITH. I should probably throw out a red herring now to make science appear corrupt and biased because, while fundamentalists are wrong, they've got good anti-science propaganda."
