by cofty 191 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17987-how-life-evolved-10-steps-to-the-first-cells/
Anyone who wants to read the material that the evolutionist mind feeds on, have a look. The first point assumes water without any attempt at explaining where the hell the water came from.
There's no scientific method followed, to demonstrate their 'repeatable' experiments and results. It's all just crap they printed neatly inside the borders.
I don't think evolution is a fact.
"Men landed on the moon in 1969" is a fact.
Evolution is more complicated than a fact. It is a complex combination of many facts woven into a story to explain life and its variety in scientific terms. It's subject to change in a way comparable to other stories, whereas some singular facts are more static.
Evolution is a compelling story, but don't eliminate the possibility of surprises and revision.
"One hundred million years ago, the first unicorn descended from the mountain top, probably with the tooth fairy on its back. Scientists are sure of this probably, and we will soon find proof. This makes it a fact."
Its in quotes. That makes it scientific.
Just gotta get it peer reviewed and rubber stamped by Bill Nye the science guy.
All your "proof" is still in the future - Dumble Nuck
No the proof of evolution is already in.
Evolution is more complicated than a fact. It is a complex combination of many facts - SBF
Every living thing descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.
This simple statement is a fact.
The myriad details of precisely how it happened are of course a complex collection of related facts.
That is a very good article Dumble Nuck, thanks for posting it.
The details and data can be found in hundreds of peer-reviewed papers if you care to research.
What I would be interested in hearing from NImble Duck et al is some detail on what (if anything) he does agree with and what he doesn't. Perhaps then the "why" can be discussed in a more positive and reasonable manner.
I've seen very little serious and specific counter-arguments to any of Cofty's posts. Does Duck agree with the concept that an animal may adapt and evolve? Does he accept any evidence of evolution being observed? Does he consider all gene mutations to be unable to produce positive and sustainable change?
Cofty has been clear that he considers the statement that "all living things descended from a common ancestor" is a fact. He has presented numerous lines of argument to back that up. What exactly is false about the evidence that means it's not possible to accept that statement as a fact? Where does it fall down? Are there any points on which a creationist could agree?
For me as a bit of a spectator it's a bit like the Indecent Proposal premise - it's not really that the guy's wife won't sleep with Robert Redford, it's a matter of how much money it will cost. It's not that creationists don't believe evolution, it's how much evolutionary theory and science that they are actually prepared to accept.
What I would be interested in hearing from NImble Duck et al is some detail on what (if anything) he does agree with and what he doesn't.
ND: You asked, so I will answer.
I've seen very little serious and specific counter-arguments to any of Cofty's posts.
ND: I have NOT tried to prove anything, so the oness is not on me to provide specific arguments. I have merely pointed out the gaping holes in the evolutionist position. I have merely asked for answers to the big questions. I have pointed out that evolutionists DO NOT follow the scientific method. They have no experiments, never mind repeatable ones, that provide a resultant in favor of evolution. They always say "soon we will have it" and state the unproven as fact. I have merely, and correctly objected to this unscientific nonsense.
Does Duck agree with the concept that an animal may adapt and evolve?
ND: This is a non sequiter. "Adapt" and "evolve" are completely different things. "Adapt" is to change within a set of defined parameters. "Evolve" is to develop entirely new parameters. To put these two entirely different things together is to confuse the issue.
Does he accept any evidence of evolution being observed?
ND. LOL what evidence?
Does he consider all gene mutations to be unable to produce positive and sustainable change?
ND: Where is the scientific proof that a gene mutation was ever beneficial?
Cofty has been clear that he considers the statement that "all living things descended from a common ancestor" is a fact. He has presented numerous lines of argument to back that up.
ND: Now, this one baffles me. This is a JW forum. Supposedly, everyone here comes from a Bible background. The Genesis account, that we all learned, speaks of all mankind coming from a common ancestor, Adam. It's a foregone conclusion that it is accepted in the Bible Belt that we all descend from a common ancestor. How you have made this an issue, and made it supposed proof of evolution is breathtaking.
Please write better stuff.
The Genesis account, that we all learned, speaks of all mankind coming from a common ancestor, Adam. It's a foregone conclusion that it is accepted in the Bible Belt that we all descend from a common ancestor. How you have made this an issue, and made it supposed proof of evolution is breathtaking.
Please write better stuff.
Nimble duck: It's a foregone conclusion that it is accepted in the Bible Belt that we all descend from a common ancestor. How you have made this an issue, and made it supposed proof of evolution is breathtaking.
Duck, his statement is that "all living things" share a common descendant, not just "mankind", as you've twisted in your argument.
