OK Viviane I see you makes no difference between a human being and a pig.
I think this is a horrible view. It's pointless to keep a conversation with a pig or a goat.
Origin of Life
by cofty 405 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Viviane
Cofty, did you read about the bicameral mind hypothesis?
It's not a hypothesis.
modern human behaviour theory
There's no such theory.
OK Viviane I see you makes no difference between a human being and a pig.
I think this is a horrible view. It's pointless to keep a conversation with a pig or a goat.Just because everything you've said is refuted by evidence, science, observation and reality is no reason to purposefully lie about someone else's position. Shame on you.
-
prologos
When synthetic organic life fires up, and comparisons can be made, then it will be time to see the reactions.
-
Landy
@JM - is it really Catholic doctrine that God 'injected' humans with consiousess 6k years ago?
if so that's a new one to me.
-
Ruby456
viv
as I said don't take it personally but simply acknowledge that what sbf describes does happen in the world out there. You don't fall into that category but thanks sbf anyway for reminding us because as we know we could. ruby
Whoa, back up. The premise is not equal. With regard to evidence for a particular worldview, there is no actual evidence for a theistic world view. On the other hand, there is amble objective evidence on the scientific side. Secondly, "atheist" just means "doesn't believe in god, gods, goddesses, spirits, angels, demons", etc.. It has nothing in particular to do thinking evolution or abiogenesis is true. That has more impact on a theistic worldview than an atheistic one.viv
the 'atheistic counterpart to jehovahs witnesses' makes as many assertions that evidence from science does not support as to be equatable with belief in god, gods, goddesses, spirits, angels, demons etc. trying to make science support what it cannot and wouldn't ever is much the same thing. we are humans after all.
sbf said
JW believers and their atheist counterparts seem to share the same belief that at some point in the future their view of reality will be confirmed beyond doubt, once and for all. The evidence will be so overwhelming at Armageddon/following some scientific breakthrough, that their opponents will simply have to recognise the "truth" of the situation.
It is a fantasy. -
Fisherman
"Then they will know.. they will surely know. "
The song is about vengeance, like Frank biting on the harmonica.
-
The Rebel
My name is the rebel, I harbor no illusions of being a poster of more than average intelligence and intellect. I would therefore appreciate constructive replys to these thoughts my mind has raised having read the thread, which are:-
A) Am I correct in thinking science at present can understand very little about consciousness? If so does that have any effect on how science views "The Origin of life?"
B) Am I correct in thinking the " origin of life" can still only be theorized and observed but when it comes to complete understanding even scientists are still only small children?
...
It would be remiss of me not to reply Viviane and her earlier question? "what good points do I feel Slim has made?" Well the only answer I can give, is that in the search for answers we need the questions. And Slims questions are always new to me.
-
Viviane
the 'atheistic counterpart to jehovahs witnesses' makes as many assertions that evidence from science does not support as to be equatable with belief in god, gods, goddesses, spirits, angels, demons etc. trying to make science support what it cannot and wouldn't ever is much the same thing. we are humans after all.
Nooooope. Wrong again. Name one assertion Cofty has made about what science support that you think is wrong, and we can see whether or not objective evidence supports what you say.
Because, if you don't back it up, it's just you saying it. Cofty (and I) don't make claims about science without having something to back it up.
You'll have to do better than that.
-
Viviane
1) science has provided us with many intelligent theories on the subject on how the universe appears and the origin of life. Yet am I correct in thinking scientists shouldn't think they can " know" everything there is to know about these subjects simply by applying science.
They don't think that. Science is designed specifically to ensure that were someone to claim they did, it could be subjected to objective scrutiny.
B) Am I correct in thinking the " origin of life" can still only be theorized and observed but when it comes to complete understanding even scientists are still only small children?
You mean hypothesized. In science, a theory (like evolution or gravity) is the current best explanation supported by a body of evidence, experiment, observation and testing and it is falsifiable.
With regard to "still only small children", as compared to what? If you can point to someone that does have a complete understanding, then you might have reason to make that comparison.
Well the only answer I can give, is that in the search for answers we need the questions. And Slims questions are always new to me
"What color are a dragon's sock darns" is a question, likely a new one to you, certainly to many people. That doesn't make it a good question. "Why does 3+water = purple" is a question, but not a good one.
All questions are not equal. Questions based on misunderstanding and dishonesty, particularly when the questioner has been corrected multiple times and still persists in the question based on a falsehood. In other words, "Have you stopped beating your wife" is a question, but not a good one.
-
Ruby456
viv, here is one and it is at the crux of this thread I think (I'm relying on that cofty has a sense of humour and will spot the mistake instantly)
in reply to vidiqun cofty said
Vidqun your comment betrays the mistaken idea that a cell is animated by a force called life. It is nothing like that. There are simple precursors of all of those complex systems.
I'minterested in how you would accommodate this within your worldview. Would denial be your only option?
the science in cofty's op actually supports vidqun's view according to Lane, Mitchell, Russell and Martin although perhaps not his worldview, but vidqun's worldview is a matter of his own private way of imagining how life started particularly if we allow for metaphor in theistic and scientific descriptions.