i know, derailing your thread..
The Hobbit and Evolution: So What's Up With That?
by AGuest 125 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
AGuest
How very unpleasant you can be at times.
Likewise. Unfortunately, you can't see that... for some reason.
I'm done, Cofty. I've made my point.
If we just pretend Cofty is steaming foaming mad right now about the name-thing, would that not just go to show the whole "use-my-name-dammit" thing is a bit silly and undignifying, in particular to a divine creature without adrenaline glands?
I cannot say, dear Bohm (peace to you!). It's His name... and His right to call for its use. Who am I to check His hand? His reasons are His reasons.
i know, derailing your thread..
And think nothing of it. I can handle more than one thing at a time, including threads. Say what you wish/need to say, dear one and, again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA
-
cofty
I cannot say, dear Bohm (peace to you!). It's His name... and His right to call for its use. Who am I to check His hand? His reasons are His reasons.
Next time he pops in for a chat tell him Cofty says he is a prick for ignoring those in need who don't happen to know his secret moniker -
cyberjesus
Hypocrites rarely have the remotest idea
I dont think this can really be offensive :-D I thought Hypo-crites were does big gray animals that love mud.... wait no I think those are hipos..
A statement like that is self-offensive.
Sorry and may you have a piece.
-
Twitch
If we're equating faith in the scientific method with theism and belief in one vs the other, what part of god has been proven exactly? Where is the unequivocal proof for all to see, agree and rely on? I believe in science that is for the most part universal, undeniable and sublime even in it's accessibility which has and will correct it's failures. It ain't perfect but it's good enough for me. The one pointing the finger can't prove a thing yet one would be a hypocrite for saying so because science has been and can be wrong? Oh well, no biggee. Perhaps god would smite me for believing in his works but not him. Perhaps not. I figure I'll just roll the dice,..
-
EntirelyPossible
Perhaps, but I am choosing to call you "Coffy" and since an accurate name doesn't matter, I expect you to respond when I do. Otherwise, I'll be forced to consider you a nasty slang name for the male genital appendage.
No need to act like a b*tch, Shelly. Otherwise we might have be forced to consider you a nasty slang name for the girly bits.
And yes, we all get the point. Science changes and that smacks of "new light" and you consider it untrustworthy. That's how science works. If you don't make mistakes, you're doing it wrong. If you don't realize you made mistakes, you're doing it wrong. If you can't admit your mistakes, you're not doing it at all.
We just trust a process that exposes mistakes and moves towards correcting them more than someone that hears voices in their head. Unlike proceeding from a starting point where you are sure you are right, science asks questions and becomes more right over time. I expect you to dismiss this as "not getting the point", but the reality, voices in your head aside, is that this process is proven to work. Yours isn't.
With regard to Cofty's name, Shelly, if the god in yourr head makes such a big deal out of getting its name right, you could at least show the same respect to Cofty.
-
NomadSoul
Even if we had all the pieces of the puzzles Shelby would be asking for the missing links to the missing links, then the missing links to those missing links.
I don't depend on the evolution theory to come to a conclusion that god does not exist. Once a person starts asking questions about everything the most logical conclusion will be that there is no god. The god concept does not stand up to the rigorous standards of the scientific method.
-
Abaddon
You say; "it was not an attempt to discredit evolution".
You also say "... several scientist/anthropologist/paleontologist admissions that there is actually very little known about... and in evidence to support... evolution."
Which of those two statements is true dear?
Because making contradictory statements like that WILL cause an argment, and that contradicts you saying: "I didn't make the thread to start an argument".
Are you just stirring for the sake of it? Seems to me like you are just making a drama for the purposes of making a drama, and have ignored the responses made to you point regarding scientific and religious paradigms.
I and others addressed this directly and it is discourious of you to ignore this and deceitful of you to say otherwise.
To make it simpler:
1/ Religious beliefs are not founded on evidence. This is why you have to use this thing called 'faith' to believe in them. Religious beliefs tend to deny the truth of other religous beliefs, yet have no stringent evidencary proof of either their own beliefs or the false nature of other religious beliefs.
When a religion changes its beliefs it is not because of new evidence (it never had any anyway). It just means some theologian won an argument or because a political or socially expedient change was required.
2/ Scientific theories are based on evidence. They are the 'best fit' to the evidence. New evidence can be found. This may mean that the theory changes so it remains the 'best fit' to the evidence. Rarely will this make a major difference - new fossils get discovered all the time but not ONE has disproved evolution.
Pi and the mean force of gravity at sea level remain the same no matter who wins arguements or what society or politicians think.
With less clear cut areas where the evidence requires more interpretation, there are scientific arguements. But no reputable biological scientist doubts we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, and to say "... several scientist/anthropologist/paleontologist admissions that there is actually very little known about... and in evidence to support... evolution." is a gross distortion.
But then, it seems you would not know 'evidence' if it bit you, eh?
"There is NO EVIDENCE that directly links human evolution. None."
"In the same vein, there IS evidence of a fairly global, if not fully global flood."
-
TheSilence
This statement:
C'mon, evolutionists (human or otherwise); ya'll stop acting all coy and all... and respond... clearly... to the issues raised.
Seems to be in direct contradiction of this comment:
As I said, it was not an attempt to discredit evolution. Had nothing to DO with evolution, per se. Evolution was only the issue used to make the point, again
You didn't say 'C'mon, believers of scientific theories of all forms and nature.' You specified evolutionists to counter your arguments.
-
Abaddon
mmm... that should be ' evidentiary' instead of evidencary and 'discourteous' instead of discourious. God alone knows why I spell argument with an e, LOL, but I was rushing for a bus...
I am glad I am not the only one who can see the web of inflammatory contradictions made by someone hiding seemingly meaningless felicitations of peace. Actions speak louder than words; didn’t your Master say ‘judge a tree by its fruit’ slave Shelby? Harsh? Maybe, but I wasn’t the one “praying on the street corner...”
Four years ago you were doing just the same. Is it you who has learned nothing, or us in responding to this tired routine?
Now, if I remember correctly, having said you weren't being inflammatory when you were being inflammatory, passed judgement on a subject you plainly don't understand and refused to listen to the attempts people made to educate you, and been discourteous towards people, the next Act of the Apostle is blaming everyone else and playing the victim?
Do I get a prize if I am right?