This is a reply for up until you went for tea BS, I haven’t ploughed through your later posts, but I do note that your references which you chose to post are rather old – around 40 years old and more for some (back to 1961). That’s a long time in science. Time for your organisations material to be updated?
I did think you would say that susie, but seriously there hasn't really been much of an update from science itself in defence of the evolutionary claim, so nor much in the way of against to need to compensate for it. So in my opinion still very valid points.
One can post any amount of links to discredit science or religion. I have read more about JWs since you posted this thread than I did from your last thread and there are dozens of books, articles etc. that discredit your beliefs and state how biblical texts have been changed by your leaders to make it fit the JW theological bias. Just one example is the book ‘World Religions and Cults, Volume 1, Counterfeits of Christianity’ However, going down that route is pointless for any of us. In spite of your efforts doing what I gather you are obliged to do as a JW (attempting to convert others) I doubt that you will convince any of us that your beliefs are correct; neither will we affect your beliefs (I wouldn’t even want to, it's your business). But I would like to know what you think to my comments below.
I do understand what you are saying as regards any amounts of links to discredit, it does happen both ways of course. In defence of JW faith. Sorry it is going back to the actual bible but it really is relevant.
We are explaining about supternatural beings, God the creator but the other evil/wicked one Satan plays a part too. I know certain posters will scoff but so be it. xxx
Satan is doing everything in his power to draw people away from God, stop people ever coming to know God, by everyway he can.
He is a very powerful being himself and is evil and is capable of misleading many of mankind. One way is to influence anyone who wishes not to search for God to create false information.
Some scientists are trying so hard to find evidences to prove evolution that they sometimes are rather economical with the truth (to put it politely)
Where do the tests, originate from to try and prove age in fossils etc. Man!!
If you think about it you yourself are only puting your trust in manmade ideas yourself. Yes I agree some tests maybe quite straight forward and show certain obvious things but where millions of years are concerned it is all possibes, theories and maybes never definates.
with the bible you have to look at it as a whole, the prophesies made and fullfilled backed up by proven historical times, archeology etc all of those things. Its like a large puzzles where all the peices start to fit together
In that last page of posts, it was hard to see which bits CD wrote and which bits you wrote because different fonts were not always used. But anyway, As CD suggested, I did read the entire thread last week.
I do apologise for that, when I typed it all out in onenote on the PC it copied ok I thought but when pasted it didn't come out as I had hoped. I think CD's work was all different and not being brilliantly PC savvy what came out was not brilliant on the eye.
The most glaring thing to me that you have skirted around BS, is something both CD and I have posted concerning the massive discrepancy between the so called age of modern man as believed by JWs (Adam created in 4026 BCE – really? So precise? How and by who was that date determined?) and the age of some human bones that have been found. Recent finds have pushed the timescale for Homo sapiens back even further.
Well I do understand why you are saying that, but I think I have anwered it to a certain extent.
Scientists can tell you almost anything. They can't be as accurate as you think they are. There is so much they can't test for.
Sorry if I have posted this before.
Might it be that the evolutionary process took place as a result of mutations, that is, sudden drastic changes in genes?
Science Digest states: “Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.” However, the magazine also quotes British zoologist Colin Patterson as stating: “Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.” (February 1982, p. 92) In other words, there is no evidence to support the theory.
The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”—(1977), Vol. 10, p. 742.
What about those “ape-men” depicted in schoolbooks, encyclopedias and museums?
“The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. . . . Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.”—The Biology of Race (New York, 1971), James C. King, pp. 135, 151.
“The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.”—Science Digest, April 1981, p. 41.
“Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.”—Man, God and Magic (New York, 1961), Ivar Lissner, p. 304
From JW literature (cited by someone): "There are no actual records of ancient man, his writing, agriculture, and other pursuits, extending into the past before 4026 B.C.E., the date of Adam’s creation. Since the Scriptures outline man’s history from the very creation of the first human pair, there can be no such thing as “prehistoric man.”
No point in my mentioning earlier hominins like Homo erectus or H.ergaster then.
Not really although
From where did the various races come?
Gen. 5:1, 2; 1:28: “In the day of God’s creating Adam he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them. After that he blessed them and called their name Man [or, Mankind] in the day of their being created.” “God blessed them and God said to them: ‘Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.’” (Thus all mankind are descendants of that first human pair, Adam and Eve.)
Acts 17:26: “[God] made out of one man [Adam] every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth.” (So, regardless of what races make up a nation, they all are offspring of Adam.)
Gen. 9:18, 19: “Noah’s sons who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth. . . . These three were Noah’s sons, and from these was all the earth’s population spread abroad.” (After God destroyed the ungodly world by means of a global flood in Noah’s day, the earth’s new population, including all the races known today, developed from the offspring of Noah’s three sons and their wives.)
Were Adam and Eve merely allegorical (fictional) persons?
The Bible does not support that view; see the main heading “Adam and Eve.”
Where did Cain get his wife if there was just one family?
Gen. 3:20: “Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she had to become the mother of everyone living.” (So all humans were to be the offspring of Adam and Eve.)
Gen. 5:3, 4: “Adam lived on for a hundred and thirty years. Then he became father to a son in his likeness, in his image, and called his name Seth. And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters.” (One of Adam’s sons was Cain, and one of Adam’s daughters must have become Cain’s wife. At that time in human history when humans still had outstanding physical health and vitality, as indicated by the length of their lives, the likelihood of passing on defects as a result of marrying a close relative was not great. After some 2,500 years of human history, however, when mankind’s physical condition had greatly deteriorated, Jehovah gave to Israel laws forbidding incest.)
Gen. 4:16, 17: “Cain went away from the face of Jehovah and took up residence in the land of Fugitiveness [or, Nod] to the east of Eden. Afterward Cain had intercourse with his wife [“knew his wife,” that is, intimately so, KJ, RS; “lay with his wife,” NE] and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.” (Notice that Cain did not first meet his wife in the land to which he fled, as if she were from another family. Rather, it was there that he had sexual relations with her to produce a son.)
What explains the development of the various racial characteristics?
“All men living today belong to a single species, Homo sapiens, and are derived from a common stock. . . . Biological differences between human beings are due to differences in hereditary constitution and to the influence of the environment on this genetic potential. In most cases, those differences are due to the interaction of these two sets of factors. . . . Differences between individuals within a race or within a population are often greater than the average differences between races or populations.”—An international body of scientists convened by UNESCO, quoted in Statement on Race (New York, 1972, third ed.), Ashley Montagu, pp. 149, 150.
“A race is simply one of the partially isolated gene pools into which the human species came to be divided during and following its early geographical spread. Roughly one race has developed on each of the five major continental areas of the earth. . . . Man did indeed diverge genetically during this phase of history and we can measure and study the results of this divergence in what remains today of the old geographical races. As we would expect, divergence appears to be correlated with the degree of isolation. . . . When race formation took place on the continents, with the bottlenecking of thousands of populations in isolated gene pools all over the world, the gene-frequency differences we now see were established. . . . The paradox which faces us is that each group of humans appears to be externally different yet underneath these differences there is fundamental similarity.” (Heredity and Human Life, New York, 1963, H. L. Carson, pp. 151, 154, 162, 163) (Thus, early in human history, when a group of people were isolated from others and married within the group, certain distinctive combinations of genetic traits were emphasized in their offspring.)
I read somewhere that the year of Adam’s creation was ‘corrected’ to 4026 BCE in the 1950s, and from that information Armageddon had to be over, and paradise in place, by 1975. Never happened. Could be an inherent danger in being precise with dates that are based on a shaky foundation (man's writings) for the 'calculations' ?
No, the belief is Armageddon is still yet to happen, the bible gives us sign to look out for but it doesn't state a specific date. the bible state it is only God that knows the day and the hour, that meaning only he knows exactly when.
I wasn't a JW in 75, I wasn't very old then and was not at all interested, but as I understand it there was quite a few who did misinterpret the scriptures and took it upon themselves to give specifics like a date. Some were genuinely mistaken and learnt and accepted they had got it wrong, others were not willing to accept a mistake had been made and left the faith, I think I am right in saying it was that group that became "Christadelpheans" but I can't be sure on that.
Anyway the point is, sometimes even the best of us can make mistakes with what is put in front of us so it our mistakes and not the information. if you know what I mean.
At the risk of repeating myself, modern human (Homo sapiens) remains have been found in Morocco that are up to 300,000 years old, and plenty have been found around the world 100,000 – 200,000 years old, using more than one independent method for dating the rocks they were found in (not radiocarbon dating creeky – that only works to about 50,000 years, but other methods are available). Humans existed long before the Neolithic period of Adam & Eve’s supposed time.
I disagree with that because as I have mentioned before in my opinion nothing is reliable enough to come to accurate conclusions.
Any tests are Man made and open to mistake, misinterpritation, imagination, desperation for a possitive result, adoration and most of all Satans influence. xx
Human settlements 50,000 years old have been found in Australia, 45,000 years old in Italy. The history of agriculture (development of crops from wild progenitors and domestication of animals) goes back to at least around 8,000 -10,000 years ago, depending on the crop /animal.
None of these facts is remotely compatible with the notion that Adam (if he were real in the first place, which is another question) was the first human and appeared only approximately 6000 years ago. This short span of human existence is not credible.
If you believe the bible accounts to be correct then it perfectly understable. It does all fit together as a whole.
It seems to me that JWs have somewhat shot themselves in the foot by insisting on this precise date for the origin of humans when science can show this to be wrong, not just from one or two findings or methods, but from from a wide range of evidence. And it messed up the predictions for Armageddon too. Hasn't that been glossed over?
I don't as above, it fits if the bible accounts are correct.
I supposeTaze Russell, Rutherford, Frederick Franz et al. in the US may not have known about ancient remains and settlements, or they chose to ignore such findings. In Britain Cheddar man (a 10,000 year old skeleton) was found in 1903, but maybe such news didn't reach the US.
Really I couldn't say about that, but I am sure given the information they would have come to their own conclusions and acted on them. It would obviously have depended on each individuals faith and love for their God.
Perhaps it’s time that some doctrinal changes were made to deal with the massive woolly mammoth (or elephant) in the room?
Why? the woolly mammouth itself has never been denied, nor has the existance of the dinasaurs come to that. xx
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Next mood swing in 6 minutes
++++++++++++++++++++++++
7ryMJjyBMgowKMZdQ~~_7.JPG "cee-dee"){kind=avatar}
