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

I do not refute the claim about DNA common ancestors so why discuss that? My entire point is that could be the case with chance or design. This is my point, why is there any dispute about this?

So you're telling me that ...

1 - you accept the scientific proof that humans evolved from non-human ancestors over millions of years through evolution by natural selection.

2 - you think it is possible/likely that an intelligent being of some sort was responsible for the ultimate origin of the universe and perhaps the origin of life.

Have I got that right?

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

It's probably easier for you to feel positive about Ex-B's progress when you have not been on the receiving end of his intellectual dishonesty and deliberate duplicity. I have endless patience for people with genuine questions and misapprehensions.

I would submit that at this point asking Ex-B if he is willing to examine any of his conclusions and be open to examining them would be the next step.

I did, he said 'yes please'. I said 'okay but we will need to be careful to stick to the topic we have agreed on'. He said 'don't bother then'.

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

The old give a thousand monkeys typewriters and a couple hundred thousand years and one of them will produce the works of Shakespeare. That is certainly possible as well.

Actually that shows a lack of understanding of how natural selection works. Evolution by natural selection is NOT about blind chance.

Educate

Which is why I have started dozens of threads in order to do exactly that. Ex-B admits having never read a single science book in his entire life, and refuses to engage in a conversation about the evidence, but is adamant that the facts support his superstitions. The tile of this thread is about 'CONCLUSIONS'. How can you reach a conclusion when you know literally nothing about the other side

The difference is that those of us who have made the effort to understand the scientific evidence are also experts on creationism.

'He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.' John Stuart Mill

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

Science does not prove that God does not exist - especially when theists obfuscate what they mean by god.

However you can't have it both ways. It is beyond all doubt that humans descended from non-human ancestors over millions of years. This is as certain as the fact that the earth is not flat.

Therefore there was no fall from perfection, no Adam, no original sin, and therefore no ransom in the sense that JWs believe.

You can have your own beliefs and superstitions but you cannot have your own facts.

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

Go back and read my original offer and stop lying.

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

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!

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

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.

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

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?

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.