by ExBethelitenowPIMA 81 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Okay I'm in the UK and it's mid morning. I will start the new thread this evening. Remember it will NOT be about abiogenesis or the origin of DNA or the origin of the universe. It will be very specific. How DNA proves common ancestry. Any attempt to change the topic will end the conversation.
See you later.
Thank you Cofty but in that case I don’t think there is a need to. I personally don’t refute the claim that DNA proves common ancestry. Although some refute and debunk at least part of it.
I take the view that this is not important, it may be true or there may be more to it but what has that got to do with the origin of the universe?
As I’ve said to you before when we talked about the origin of the everything, You are talking about something else entirely. There are some professors we have talked about before who don’t refute DNA proves common ancestry but still believe in intelligent design at the very start. This is the question that really matters.
So if anyone else wants to refute the DNA thing go ahead I’m quite happy to accept it. But I don’t see it has anything to do with which of the two boxes every belief system has to fit into. The origin of everything was it box 1. Chance or box 2. Design.
Every belief system has to fit into one of these boxes or you are like me you admit we just don’t know.
Cofty is nobly trying to get us to appreciate what we DO know,
Big Dog: The lawlessness that often accompanies a breakdown in social order can certainly make one wonder if humans are truly moral creatures.
That's an interesting point. Experience tells us that a surprising number of people will put aside their morals when faced with an opportunity to do so in apparent safety. This is especially true if the opportunity allows them some kind of moral 'wiggle room' (such as harming someone who is "deserving"). Our morality is almost never a black/white construct- it is wrapped in layers of understanding. Our community, our religious belief, our personal circumstances... all of these play a part.
Perhaps the real issue is the presumption that morals can only be rigid and inflexible. Almost no one treats them that way, with the probable exception of the ones with a solid consensus (murder or rape, for example). Admitting that morality is frequently pliable seems to be a non-starter for many religious believers, since they are certain that these rules come from god and are therefore strict regardless of severity.
Me: Would you like to have a detailed conversation specifically about the evidence for common ancestry?
Ex-B: Yes please.
Me: Okay but it is important that we stick to the specific topic.
Ex-B: In that case don't bother.
Pathetic!
Why is pathetic if you sounded like you had some new proof?
I said yes please when you sounded like you had something interesting and new to share to do with what we were talking about the origin of everything?
But then your next post you said as long as it’s not to do with the origin of everything? Well that is pathetic.
very good attempt to derail the discussion Cofty but your attempt to take it over to a different track failed.
With all due respect Cofty I can see you want to talk about something else entirely, I can see this by your post here -“ Calling evolution by natural selection 'chance theory'”
So do you admit that it is possible to believe in evolution through natural selection and intelligent design at the same time? Is that what you are agreeing with? If not what do you mean?
I have said many times that evolution theory or DNA coming from common ancestry may well have some truth to it but that doesn’t answer the question about which box you are in 1. Chance or 2. Design responsible for the absolute origin of everything.
You don’t seem to want to talk about what this thread is all about and that’s fine with me. I don’t try to refute your argument about DNA it may well have some truth to it, or maybe not. But it doesn’t matter either way to what this thread is all about.
I still maintain this statement chance or design can’t be proven and if you agree with this statement then you are also agnostic by true definition
Go back and read my original offer and stop lying.
Big Dog: The lawlessness that often accompanies a breakdown in social order can certainly make one wonder if humans are truly moral creatures.
That's an interesting point. Experience tells us that a surprising number of people will put aside their morals when faced with an opportunity to do so in apparent safety. This is especially true if the opportunity allows them some kind of moral 'wiggle room' (such as harming someone who is "deserving"). Our morality is almost never a black/white construct- it is wrapped in layers of understanding“
Tonus and Bigdog your posts really got me thinking. In fact I can’t stop thinking about your points you made there.
If you once believed in intelligent design as the origin of everything then go over to believe chance as the origin then who is to say what is right and wrong?
After all we are just the same as the animals we evolved from and they think nothing of morality- murder, rape and torture for fun.
If it all began by chance and there is no purpose or meaning it was all just an accident blind chance that we are here then why bother to do what is right? Why not be like the animal kingdom that we evolved from?
This is where I find it hard to believe in the chance theory as the origin of everything because humans are distinctly different from animals and we have a conscience.
Go back and read my original offer and stop lying
Cofty I am not lying I’m just not interested in talking about what you want to talk about I think it has zero relevance to proving chance or design theory.
You are obviously not wanting to talk about this and I don’t want to talk about what you keep talking for reasons I have made clear, it makes no difference either way. Zero relevance either way.
