Posts by cofty

81

My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

after being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.

i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.

but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.

cofty

Ive talked with Cofty and others a lot on here and other places and they still can’t come up with any irrefutable evidence of chance theory.

Calling evolution by natural selection 'chance theory' shows that you - a) totally misunderstand the topic and b) have a completely closed mind and no interest in learning.

Please don’t do a Cofty and tell to read this or that book because the book can prove it but you can’t.

I have literally dozens of topics explaining the subject in detail in my own words. I have layed out some of that proof in direct conversation with you. Why are you lying? I offered you a reading list so that you can study it further. You are too lazy/closed minded to do so.

81

My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

after being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.

i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.

but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.

cofty

Morality is the word we use to describe how we wrestle with the way we should or should not act in relation to others.

We have to decide on our objective - for example promoting the well-being of conscious creatures. Then we weigh up whether a proposed action advances that goal. This is all we actually mean by 'should' or 'should not' or 'right and wrong' or even 'good and evil'.

It is a moral fact that doing gratuitous injury to others is always 'bad'.

Christians complicate things by inserting an additional layer - the wishes or commands of a divine law-giver. But the law-giver has nothing to say about so many of the dilemmas that we face. In the case of the god of the bible we are faced with a law-giver who approves of things we all find repugnant. The truth is we have to filter god's moral commands by using the same rubrics that atheists use. In other words god is useless as a moral guide.

81

My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

after being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.

i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.

but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.

cofty

how are those moral absolutes identified?

What absolutes? All moral statements are provisional.

81

My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

after being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.

i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.

but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.

cofty

There are moral facts that do not depend on either personal opinion or divine law-givers.

Big Dog - Chatgpt wrote your post didn't it?

81

My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

after being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.

i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.

but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.

cofty

You may as well go and steal and scam people, it’s all just blind chance anyway

If superstition is the only thing stopping you from hurting others you have some serious moral deficiencies.

10

Whatever happened to NewChapter?

by Etude in

jw
friends

it's been a while since i've been online here so, forgive me if i seem clueless.

i found a doc with a link newchapter posted several years ago.

she was writing about violence and abortion and gave quite a few stats.

cofty

I can't recall the circumstances but she 'left' a while ago. She still posts on Facebook. Very astute and formidable debater.

120

Index of Evidence for Evolution Threads

by cofty in

re-posting this for reference.. #1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..

#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..

#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..

cofty

Let's image for a moment that Darwin and every biologist since was a racist and a misogynist.

It would make not one iota of difference to the veracity of evolution.

If Newton was a racist gravity would still be a fact.

If Einstein was a racist relativity would still be true.

Science cares only about facts. It has no regard for your feelings.

120

Index of Evidence for Evolution Threads

by cofty in

re-posting this for reference.. #1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..

#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..

#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..

cofty

Oh dear EP has been vomiting all over my thread again

Totally ignored the evidence of course.Troll

120

Index of Evidence for Evolution Threads

by cofty in

re-posting this for reference.. #1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..

#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..

#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..

cofty

Thanks.

Just for the record I'm going to answer the question EP was afraid of.

Obviously a teacher would find it difficult to prove cheating by comparing essays if the students simply claim that their identical answers are just a result of using the same sources.

In a similar way creationists claim that the amazing correlation between animal genomes are simply a result of having the the same creative source.

Our professor has a simple technique available to confirm her suspicions. By carefully comparing the errors in each essay plagiarism can be proven beyond all doubt. For example if all the students write that the first world war began in 1975 it is inconceivable that they did not cheat - there are countless ways to be wrong!

In the same way it is by examining the tiny quirks in genomes that we can prove common ancestry. For example very occasionally a virus will get itself copies into a sex cell of its host and be copied into future generations. The exact place where this viral DNA ends up is almost - but not totally - arbitrary. When we find the same viral DNA in precisely the same place in species, and when we can repeat that for multiple endogenous retro viruses, we have proof that those species share a common ancestor.

This is very similar to the proof that is used in courts every day to prove paternity and convict rapists.

This is the difference between science and ideology. This is why ideologues like EP run away from actual debates.

120

Index of Evidence for Evolution Threads

by cofty in

re-posting this for reference.. #1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..

#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..

#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..

cofty

EP knew exactly where my question was going. She ducked it three times and then ran away.

Typical ideologue