Posts by cofty

20

Noah + new understanding

by dothemath in

so they mentioned noah couldn’t have preached to all the population back before the flood.

do you think they might start using common sense regarding not being able to get every animal type on the ark from the whole world?.

maybe the poor sloth from south america didn’t have to crawl all the way?

Noah + new understanding

by dothemath in

so they mentioned noah couldn’t have preached to all the population back before the flood.

do you think they might start using common sense regarding not being able to get every animal type on the ark from the whole world?.

maybe the poor sloth from south america didn’t have to crawl all the way?

cofty

Hence, variation within species would still develop over time and in localised regions

So how do you explain marsupials

Australia is home to 223 species of marsupial. Lacking a womb our mammalian cousins give birth to their young at a very early stage of development and then nurse them to maturity. Female marsupials also have 3 vaginas but that is another topic. The earliest fossils of marsupials are not to be found in Australia however but in North America 80 million years ago. Their journey can be followed south all the way to the tip of South America 40 million years ago and then they suddenly turn up in Australia 30 million years ago.

So where were Joey's ancestors during the missing 10 million years and how did they manage to get to Australia?In a word the answer is Gondwana.

Throughout the earth's history the continents have been constantly in motion, crashing together to form supercontinents and ripping apart again in various formations. The world we see today is a snapshot in geological time. During the Late Cretaceous Period South America and Australia were joined to either end of Antarctica to form what was left of Gondwana which began to unzip in the Triassic. This leads to a testable prediction. If evolution is true then it ought to be possible to find fossils of marsupials with the correct antiquity in Antarctica.

In his book ''Cold,'' published in 1931 Dr. Lawrence M.Gould wrote ''I had rather go back to the Antarctic and find a fossil marsupial than three gold mines.'' Guess what? In 1982 an expedition funded by the National Science Foundation found fossils of more than a dozen species of marsupial on Seymour Island right on the ice-free corridor between South America and Antarctica. The fossils were dated to between 35 and 40 million years ago and were similar to those found in South America at the same time.

The marsupial story is an example of how the fact of evolution can be tested in the real world and shown to be accurate.

In an alternative hypothesis all 223 species of marsupial walked and swam in pairs from Mount Ararat to Australia via Antarctica.

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

Have you ever watched DIY SOS?

Same spirit of community and good will but they won't cut you off from your family if you admit to a thought crime

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

FFS!

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 degree of trust required to believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent, loving creator is infinitely large.

The trust required to accept the overwhelming body of evidence for evolution by natural selection is trivial.

To try to make any sort of epistemological equivalence is intellectually dishonest.

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

Not many succinct answers to simple questions in this thread. It's almost as if obfuscation is being used as a convenient cover.

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

Succinctly - Comparing trust in the scientific claim that the earth is not flat with trust in the veracity or divine inspiration of the bible is obtuse.

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

Peter - The earth is not flat.

Viruses cause disease.

Tectonic plates move.

The sun is at the centre of the solar system.

Are these subjective beliefs?

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

Ex-B You used a confusing phrase saying you accept - 'DNA common ancestry ' .

I was simply asking you to clarify. If stating your current understanding clearly, amounts to putting you in a box then conversation becomes impossible.

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?