by Sea Breeze 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
So are you saying the statement is not true?
It is true in a way that is unremarkable and entirely incidental to the discussion.
Unless you are claiming that ‘evolutionists’ (actually just biologists) assert that evolution ‘plans’ for specific outcomes before the process begins. Which would be an idiotic misrepresentation.
So, If I understand your assumption correctly, what you are saying is that everything we see is a result of natural unguided processes because we see them, making the probability (for us) exactly one.
Is that a fair assessment?
See the news articles (they pertain to the same discovery) at:
https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/a-single-genetic-change-turned-a-fishs-fins-into-limbs/
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/04/americas/zebrafish-fins-limbs-scn/index.html
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-02/cp-rra012721.php
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210204144032.htm
Whoop, there it is! Now we are talking about punctuated equilibrium model of evolution theory before our eyes. Yeah baby!
Sea breeze:
So, If I understand your assumption correctly, what you are saying is that everything we see is a result of natural unguided processes because we see them, making the probability (for us) exactly one.
Is that a fair assessment?
No. 🤦♂️
First off, I didn’t make an assumption. There is no evidence of any ultimate ‘cause’ other than natural processes. That does not inherently preclude a supernatural cause, but you would need to provide evidence of any proposed supernatural cause. Arguments from incredulity are not evidence for a preferred religious or otherwise superstitious or unfounded belief. The fact that something has happened means the probability that the thing has happened is one. Notions of assigning significance to humans seeing a particular thing as if the act of seeing it influences the outcome of past events are superstitious and irrelevant.
I didn’t make an assumption. There is no evidence of any ultimate ‘cause’ other than natural processes.
So you believe that every effect has a cause except for the first one? Is that a fair statement of your position?
Sea breeze:
So you believe that every effect has a cause except for the first one? Is that a fair statement of your position?
Again, no. Given the current understanding of how time and gravity are interrelated, it cannot be determined whether time even existed ‘before’ the initial expansion of the local universe. Beyond that, I don’t make any claim about what happened. But I certainly don’t subscribe to a special pleading fallacy about an infinitely complex magical sky friend that always existed.
Also, your discussion technique, with the leading questions and changing the subject without admitting that you’ve misrepresented my position, is a little tedious.
it cannot be determined whether time even existed ‘before’ the initial expansion of the local universe. Beyond that, I don’t make any claim of knowing exactly what happened.
So you believe that observable cause and effects are rooted in time, but the first (unguided) cause that created everything may not have been rooted in time? Is that what you are saying? Just trying to get it right here.
Sea breeze:
So you believe that observable cause and effects are rooted in time, but the first (unguided) cause that created everything may not have been rooted in time?
No. Refer to previous.
