by cofty 147 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
In the Opening Post, cofy offers to debate creationism, but more particularly Evolution, the pro and cons.
That is a very narrow subject matter. It merely covers the details of the evolutionary process, about which there might be little doubt. I does not deal with the real big questions: origin of first life, and origins period.
Cofty, I have said what I wanted to say. You can use that in your new thread. From there I will view your information and add what I deem necessary. Let’s not make hard and fast rules that we cannot keep. Perhaps one should lay the groundwork first and establish basic definitions, and work from there. This will be of assistance to those following the thread. Scientific method starts with the postulation of a theory or hypothesis. The process would include observation and accumulation of evidence. From these a theory or hypothesis could either be proved or rejected.
Hypothesis,
theory, law mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that
explains a principle operating in nature. Hypothesis implies insufficient evidence
to provide more than a tentative explanation (a hypothesis explaining the
extinction of the dinosaurs). Theory implies a
greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth (the theory of
evolution). Law implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has
been found to be invariable under the same conditions (the law of gravitation).
See Webster.
Vidqun: Scientific method starts with the postulation of a theory or hypothesis. The process would include observation and accumulation of evidence. From these a theory or hypothesis could either be proved or rejected.
Actually, the scientific method starts with an observation, not a postulation. Step 2 is coming up with as many hypotheses as possible. Step 3 is the process of elimination hypotheses by testing and further observation, etc.
I mention that, because if you start with one "postulation", then you are vulnerable to carrying out an exercise in confirmation bias, not the scientific method, because (human nature being what it is) you tend to just gather the evidence in support of your postulation, and you ignore the rest.
On a separate note, perhaps the debate should be re-framed as evolution vs "intelligent design", rather than evolution v creation, to eliminate the abiogenesis red herring.
Bottom line: EVOLUTIONIST'S EYES ARE BROWN BECAUSE THEY ARE FULL OF CRAP JUST LIKE I WAS, WHEN I COULD PROVE EVERYTHING I BELIEVED IN THE WATCHTOWER. - Libby
Please take note of the way that facts can produce hatred and vitriol from theists. Childish insults typed with caps lock on.
Libby - You have actually asserted that all of the most eminent scientists in the world - including thousands of christians - are "FULL OF CRAP" for having the intellectual honesty be led by the evidence. And yet you have never invested more than 5 minutes to consider that evidence. Does it not occur to you how arrogant that is?
I remember what it was like to have to avoid facts and how frustrating it was when somebody made that difficult. There is a very significant difference between your ability to defend Watchtower dogma and the case for evolution. You were arguing about the correct interpretation of a work of fiction. Evolution v creation is a conversation about objective facts.
I need to add another thought. Why challenge people here?... No need for a challenge. - Libby
This is a religious discussion forum. We discuss topics relevant to your religious beliefs or lack of beliefs. All of us have learned new things since leaving the cult. Some more than others. Creationism is the fundamental dogma of the cult and its the one a lot of ex-JWs have trouble getting over. So far I have presented 37 topics in a series presenting proof of the fact of evolution. In response I have received countless insults.
It seems entirely reasonable to offer creationists an opportunity to present their case. Anybody who thinks they have good reason to reject evolution can present their best argument and I have offered to attempt to answer it.
It is very interesting that such a reasonable offer should engender such an unreasonable and angry response.
As of right now I have to agree with Vidgun, there is no evidence that we can replicate life or create it from scratch to then one must entertain the idea that life was deposited here on earth from somewhere and it then evolved. - Crazyguy
Vidqun was talking about the origin of the eukaryotic cell not abiogenesis. And actually it can and was replicated in the laboratory.
This is a religious discussion forum
Well not quite, according to Simon anyway. It's mainly about support, friendship and tolerance, sharing information and feeling free to ask questions.
'we're an independent community site offering support for both current and former Jehovah's Witnesses and anyone else who has been affected by the beliefs, doctrines and practices of the Jehovah's Witness religion as governed by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (WTB&TS).
We are not affiliated with the WTB&TS in any way and we take your privacy and security veryseriously doing our utmost to protect your identity and provide a friendly, tolerant and informative environment where you can ask questions, share information and make new friends. Membership is completely free and anonymous so why not join today!'
Cofty, I have said what I wanted to say. You can use that in your new thread. From there I will view your information and add what I deem necessary. Let’s not make hard and fast rules that we cannot keep. - Vidqun
No that wasn't the offer. I can keep those very simple rules. Why can't you?
I have made a very simple offer.
Having indicated their interest and suggested a topic anybody can present their most compelling objection to evolution. All I ask is that they actually present something they have made an effort to understand rather than lazily pasting something or using links and videos. This is a very reasonable request.
I will then have a day/few days (we can agree in advance) to attempt to refute their argument.
In round two I will present an example of evidence for evolution. They must agree to make an attempt to refute that. I will create a new thread once I have an offer.
You ignored my reasonable offer and began multiple posts on your field of expertise microbiology. Despite the fact that this is closer to abiogenesis than it is to evolution, and that it is well outside my comfort zone I agreed to your challenge.
I am inviting to use all of your specialist knowledge of microbiology to make your case as a professional scientist. Why are you willing to make random posts on the topic but not willing to hold it up to scrutiny? What are you afraid of?
Well not quite - Xant
I post all my evolution threads in the forum that is entitled "Beliefs, Doctrines and Practices"
There are thousands of threads about JW doctrines - as there should be.
Creationism is a fundamental JW belief and doctrine.
I was disagreeing with your point that the purpose of this forum is to discuss religion. The purpose is support, friendship and tolerance for exJWs, no matter where they are in their journey since leaving the cult, according to Simon's intro.
It's not an either/or.
I make lots of posts to encourage and support and lots of posts about doctrine.
I write an article about blood and nobody objects. Same goes for a thread about JW's view of Jesus.
Post about the JW doctrine of creationism and that's a problem. The reason is that creationism is the one thing JWs have in common with other fundies.
