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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Here is a proposal for you made in complete sincerity.
I will start a new thread on how DNA proves the common ancestry of humans with other species. It will be presented in accessible language. Do you agree to engage in the conversation with an open mind?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
how are those moral absolutes identified?
What absolutes? All moral statements are provisional.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I can't recall the circumstances but she 'left' a while ago. She still posts on Facebook. Very astute and formidable debater.
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..
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.