JW.org’s identity crisis: Jehovah’s Witnesses “do not agree with creationism”
avatar

JW.org now refuses to accept that Witnesses are creationists because “some creationists” teach things that conflict with their ideas

JW.org has posted an FAQ page in response to the question “Do You Believe in Creationism?” Watchtower’s response? “No.” The reason? “Jehovah’s Witnesses do believe that God created everything. But we do not agree with creationism. Why not? Because a number of creationist ideas actually conflict with the Bible.”

Anybody who understands the meaning of the words “creationist” and “creationism” and who is familiar with Witness teachings will find the above answer both perplexing and self-contradictory.

Put simply, Watchtower is suffering from an identity crisis. On the one hand it rejects evolution, and on the other it seeks to dodge the creationist label because it doesn’t agree with what all other creationists believe. Such reasoning is tantamount to a person refusing to accept the designation “christian” because he or she doesn’t agree with what all professed christians believe.

Witnesses might be surprised to learn that Watchtower’s ‘refuting’ of creationism is nothing new. Back in 1986 a Questions From Readers article was published which stated, in part (bold is mine)…

“In these 1980’s, ‘creationism’ has become a true ‘ism’ because of its adoption by political pressure groups, such as the Moral Majority. It is no longer a neutral term, but embodies extreme fundamentalist views of the Bible, such as the view that God created the earth and everything upon it in six days of 24 hours each. There are now more than 350 books in circulation setting out such “creationism” dogma. Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the unreasonable theories of ‘creationism’ in favor of what the Bible really teaches about ‘creation.’” (w86 9/1 p.30)

Some “young earth creationists” believe that there were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark

What both this 1986 article and the JW.org FAQ page fail to acknowledge is that not all creationists necessarily share the same views, in just the same way as not every christian denomination shares identical beliefs. There is room for variety. For example, it is possible to declare yourself a creationist but not be a “young earth creationist,” i.e. someone who believes the earth was created in six literal days.

Numerous sources confirm that creationists do not necessarily have to agree on every point. In Darwinism Comes To America Ronald L. Numbers observes, “Creationists of today are not in agreement concerning what was created according to Genesis.” And, as the book Science, Evolution and Creationism explains, “Advocates of the ideas collectively known as ‘creationism’ and, recently, ‘intelligent design creationism’ hold a wide variety of views. Most broadly, a ‘creationist’ is someone who rejects natural scientific explanations of the known universe in favor of special creation by a supernatural entity.”

This is where a Witness might argue, “Ah, but Witnesses do not reject ‘natural scientific explanations of the known universe.'” Indeed JW.org’s FAQ declares that Witnesses “have no objection to credible scientific research.” But is that really the case?

Evolution – a “false teaching?”

In a recent Watchtower magazine the Society reaffirmed its condemnation of evolution as a “widespread false teaching that blinds people to the truth about God.” (w13 10/15 p.7) Now, as unpleasant as this may be for some readers to consider, whether you believe in God or not, it is now impossible to justifiably deny that evolution is a real process. It is an astounding mechanism that has been unfolding for countless millennia, and is even happening right in front of us.

The existence of hospital superbugs is proof that evolution is a real process that shapes the development of all living things

The reason why hospital superbugs exist is because successive generations of bacteria with the necessary genes flourish due to having developed an immunity to antibiotics, which flush out any strands of bacteria without the needed adaptations.

In essence, this is an accelerated version of “natural selection” where the changing environment determines the survival of the species, which (in the case of bacteria) reproduces over minutes or hours rather than years or decades. Just because bacteria are small, doesn’t mean that similar environmental forces are not influencing the development of much larger organisms including animals and humans – albeit incrementally over unfathomable periods of time.

If you disagree with the above, and believe that each “superbug” is created on the spot by God the moment new drugs are developed as some kind of cruel joke to thwart the efforts of doctors, then you are of course entitled to your opinion. But in denying the process I have described you are denying clear evidence of evolution, which is precisely what the Watchtower continues to do right up to the present.

And yet, Watchtower wants the outside world to think of it as trendy and not “anti-science.” It sees itself as accommodating towards the latest scientific evidence, which is why it refuses to accept its proper designation as a fundamentally creationist faith.

“Limping upon two different opinions”

Elijah denounced unfaithful Israelites for “limping upon two different opinions”

Ironically, the scripture in 1 Timothy that the Society has used to label apostates as “mentally diseased” actually applies that expression to those who work themselves into a frenzy “over questionings and debates about words” – which is precisely what the Society seems to be doing with regards to creationism. (1 Tim 6:4) They are arguing that the word doesn’t apply to them because they don’t like the image it portrays.

Moreover, at 1 Kings 18:21 the prophet Elijah condemned the unfaithful Israelites of his day for being similarly indecisive. He said, “How long will you be limping upon two different opinions? If Jehovah is the [true] God, go following him; but if Ba′al is, go following him.”

In dancing between designations, and picking and choosing which words should or shouldn’t be applied to them, Watchtower is similarly “limping upon two different opinions.” On the one hand they dismiss evolution, but on the other they don’t like the stigma surrounding creationism. So, which is it to be?

 

 

 

 

 

Further reading…

Related videos…

Bookmark the permalink.

91 Responses to JW.org’s identity crisis: Jehovah’s Witnesses “do not agree with creationism”

  1. unbaptized says:

    What is the difference between evolution and adaptations? Does it matter? We see things as they are before us. God can do anything,created science…no conflict?????

  2. wishus says:

    ohh cmon… they are not ultra conservitave. muslem extreamests are ultra conservitive… JDUBS are only partly conservitive. they are however everything else you mention and more!

  3. Bastion says:

    I remembered thinking about this when I started studying biology back then. I had to learned so much evidence for evolution. The book and articles that were supposed to “debunk” evolution were worst than useless. For years, I thought it was my duty to disprove evolution and protect the truth. It al seems soo naive in hindsight.

  4. Anonymous JW Brother says:

    Dear John,

    I really appreciate your scepticism and wit. I feel for you, and your situation.

    However, this article misrepresents JW views on evolution. Is it possible to accept that generations of bacteria adapt but that there is a limit to their adaptions? It is, and it’s not just JWs that accept the first but reject the second proposition. You’re article equivocates on the term “evolution.”

    Do superbugs remain bugs? Without exception.

    Does the fact that living things adapt to their environment also explain how molecules can come to life, or how bacteria can become fish, fish become man? I do not think so. You would need some extraordinary evidence to demonstrate that, surely. Does such evidence exist, or is it an assumption? If only the latter, then why accept it without proof? Prove it first, then accept it. Is that not the proper order of scientific reasoning?

    Put it another way. What I’m trying to say is that information, prescriptive digital information, embedded within living things separates life from non-life. DNA is a three-symbol base-four digital code. Where does the code and the information it carries come from? Nature destroys digital information. It never creates it. How did nature create a digital code? In fact different kinds of digital code exist within living things. You cannot naturally select a code, not matter how long you wait. Natural selection explains the survival of the fittest. What explains its arrival?

    You could argue that science is working on it. We just need more time to find the answer. But why believe something until you know how it works? Isn’t that called “faith.” Put it this way, you might say I’m crazy to accept that God parted the Red Sea. “How did He do it?” you might reasonably ask. If my answer was, “I don’t know but theologians are working on it,” you might reasonably call it a matter of faith. You would be right.

    If science cannot answer how molecules became man, then evolution too amounts to an article of faith. Yet, how can that be since science disavows faith? It should be based on evidence only.

    Hope I’m making sense.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      I suggest you study evolution before writing about it. That abiogenesis is yet to be understood takes noting away from the proven facts of evolution.

      • Anonymous JW Brother says:

        Buddy, I get that you don’t like Witnesses. I can appreciate your angst. The organisation is far from perfect. There are many things I’m not happy with. Still, not liking someone doesn’t mean they’re wrong necessarily. Regarding evolution these are my little questions.

        Why do living things have a limit to their adaptions?
        Why do superbugs remain bugs?
        Exactly how can bacteria become fish, fish become man?
        How can life come from non-life without intelligent intervention?
        Where does the DNA code and the information it carries come from?
        How did nature create digital codes?

        Can someone answer them without dropping a promisary note? Saying, ‘We don’t know yet but science is working on it,’ just makes evolution an article of faith; I would argue even credulous faith. And no just-so stories either. Reason requires repeatable evidence. If there is no repeatable evidence for molecules-to-man, then believing it requires that I exercise faith. Dare I even say: evolution becomes a kind of cult? If repeatable experiments aren’t possible because complete evolution relies on unique unrepeatable events, then are we not talking about miracles?

        As Lloyd rightly says, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim molecules became man without help, where is that extraordinary evidence?

        • Cedars says:

          Anonymous JW Brother…

          “Why do living things have a limit to their adaptions?
          Why do superbugs remain bugs?
          Exactly how can bacteria become fish, fish become man?
          How can life come from non-life without intelligent intervention?
          Where does the DNA code and the information it carries come from?
          How did nature create digital codes?”

          These are all questions spawned from your own ignorance and scientific illiteracy. Foisting them on me or others is just plain lazy. If you can present evidence that contradicts the answers scientists give to these questions, you can collect your Nobel prize and get a round of applause from us. But the fact that you are able to spew forth questions that are the product of a closed, indoctrinated mind, and a lack of reading and study, is not impressive. Quite the reverse.

          “As Lloyd rightly says, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim molecules became man without help, where is that extraordinary evidence?”

          As has already been expressed – abiogenesis and evolution are two different fields of study. While evolution is proven, and can be asserted as fact, the same cannot be said of abiogenesis at the moment. Therefore the entire premise of this last question is flawed. One can make the ‘extraordinary’ claim that one species can and will evolve into another given enough time and slow, incremental mutations influenced and shaped by the creature’s environment, because there is plenty of evidence for this in the DNA and archeological records. But if you make the claim that everything in our universe was made by a “wise and loving” God who fixates about what we do with the genitals he made for us while letting 9 million children die every year before they reach the age of 5, and thinks it proper to stone someone to death for collecting wood on the wrong day, you will find your ability to provide evidence utterly escapes you.

          • Anonymous JW Brother says:

            So let me get this straight, your response is: I’m ignorant, scientifically illiterate, and lazy. Well, that’s not very nice 😉 Is that not what you call ad honimem?

            So to disbelieve the ‘molecules to man without help’ belief, I have to present evidence against it for it not to be true, because scientists say its true. Isn’t that like saying the church says its true so someone has to disprove the priest before I disbelieve it? Shouldn’t such beliefs be personal? Why should anyone believe something because someone else says its true? I thought that’s what your blog is all about Lloydster?

            I’m just asking what anyone would ask, JW or not. If you believe in evolution, you must have solid ‘personal’ conviction. Scientist say so is not good enough. At least you should have some personal idea of where the information comes from. How do the laws of nature generate digital information? Sure, selection can tinker with pre-existing information. No problem with that. But as far as I’m aware, the physical and chemical laws surrounding us never generate new information. Only minds do that.

            I haven’t presented any evidence for God. Not sure why that comes up. Or do you mean molecules-to-man must be true because God is false? Isn’t that black-and-white thinking? A false dichotomy? Hey, I’m just asking.

          • Cedars says:

            My name is Lloyd, not Lloydster. Taking liberties with my name is at least mildly rude when you are too ashamed to give us yours, most likely because you know full well your elders (including, perhaps, your father?) will drag you into the back room and give your bottom a good spanking for your selective disobedience of the Governing Body by being on this website.

            As to your anti-science arguments, they can be summed up in this one sentence: “Scientist say so is not good enough.”

            Actually, “scientists say so” IS good enough, in just the same way as “my teacher says so” is good enough, or “my doctor says so” is good enough. When someone who is smarter than you, and who has spent many years (even decades) studying his field, and can support his conclusions with evidence, gives you verifiable information, you would need to be grossly ignorant or stupid to dismiss his conclusions because it conflicts with what your religious leaders tell you. I suspect you don’t dismiss EVERYTHING scientists produce, because you have no problem using a computer or the internet (both the products of unfettered scientific inquiry). Instead you treat science ala carte, choosing and using only the bits that suit you, and stuffing your head firmly in the sand if scientists tell you anything that conflicts with your mantra of “the Governing Body in New York have told me this, so it must be true.”

            Hence you have no problem believing that the God of the universe will imminently slaughter billions of men, women and children because they refuse to bow to the self-proclaimed authority of seven blokes who meet in an office in Brooklyn on Wednesdays, but the proposition that life evolves is, in your mind, too ridiculous to contemplate.

            So in summary: No. If scientists say all life evolved from a common ancestor, it does not behoove me or anyone else to prove this to you. The burden is on YOU to go out and educate yourself on this subject, which you will only be able to do once you shake off the shackles of fear and ignorance that are the sad byproducts of your Witness indoctrination.

          • Rowland Nelken says:

            Evolution, Anonymous JW Brother, is not a matter of belief. Unlike God wherein belief requires faith in the undevidenced, the facts of evolution are available for anyone to study. Your posts here demonstrate not only that you are one of the WT Gov. Bod’s unpaid skivvies. They also show, very clearly, that you have never taken the trouble to read about or understand evolution.

        • Rowland Nelken says:

          Many Christians accept the facts of evolution. I realise, of course, that the JWs regard their little sect of Christendom as the only true Christian group, and that all the others are in the grip of Satan and are soon to be executed at Armageddon.

          The theme of the opening statement, however, was about the JWs, as ever, pretending to be what they are not, and imagining themselves separate from and superior to, the rest of humanity. Hence their ridiculous claim that their late 19th century Adventist spinoff group is not part of Christendom.

          As your display of ignorance demonstrates, Anonymous JW Brother, you, instructed by your WT bosses, spout a creationist line. JWs are creationists and fundamentalists. They believe in divine creation as outlined in the opening chapters of Genesis and they take the Bible literally.

          The WT bosses may have fooled you and the rest of their brigade of unpaid mag pushers that your little cult is something special and superior, but to the rest of the world you only appear as ridiculous as you are misery making; yet another tiresome bunch of creationist fundies.

          • Matt says:

            Dear Anonymous JW Brother , I’ll be more polite than some others.

            There are 2 things that you are specifically doing that you may not realize you are doing. And really it’s not your fault you are doing them.

            These are:

            (1) the general logic that ‘if its really hard to believe or understand, it must be untrue”. Out of interest, have you ever really studied gravity?

            We take for granted that gravity is real. Hey we aren’t going to jump out of a window of a 4 story building, and I like snowboarding. But when you study what gravity is it is both hard to believe and there are many holes in the theory and many things still not understood.

            Also the graviton particle – the gravity particle – has never actually been found. So does this mean we don’t ‘believe’ in gravity until it is?

            You ask some specific questions, however it is clear you haven’t really studied these topics in depth. If you have researched them at all you’ve probably blocked off your mind at the point where they seemed complex or hard to believe. Or worst all the information you have on evolution is what has been taught to you by a religion that doesn’t believe in evolution.

            But there are very good answers out there for your questions, but I suggest there is value in you finding them rather than me serving it on a platter. One general principle is that just because you don’t understand it, it doesn’t make it untrue.

            I will ask a question of your question: Exactly how can bacteria become fish, fish become man? How much of you do you think is man? Bacteria cells in our body number about 40 trillion bacteria and 30 trillion human cells. So technically ‘you’ are mostly bacteria.

            (2) Imagine you hold what you believe in your right hand, and the scientific community in your left.

            Now you are doing something very common with evangelicals, creationists, JWs etc in that you have two very different standards of critique. When it comes to what questioning what is in your left hand you are very skeptical and ask hard questions. When it comes to what is in your right hand you don’t have the same logic and questioning.

            So on one hand you question the work of thousands of archaeologists, geneticists, paleontologists, anthropologists, bacteriologists, biologists, embryologists, geologists… and so on. Thousands upon thousands of people who have spent their lives studying topics, researching, finding evidence and so on.

            On the other hand you believe in stuff as ridiculous as a global flood, humans only being on the earth ~6500 years, plants being created before animals, etc.

            So you on one question complex mechanisms of evolution whist at the same time believing in the tooth fairy. This is typically why comments like yours get so much negativity in responses.

            This is a hypothetical question but you say ‘If there is no repeatable evidence for molecules-to-man’. What if scientists can recreate all evolution’s mechanisms in the lab, what happens then? Do you instantly stop believing in your faith and stop going to meetings? Does the Watchtower Society cease to exist? Of course not. The goal posts will get moved to another “well scientists haven’t done X, Y or Z yet… so they can’t prove something”…

            You really think with medical breakthroughs like we have that are reliant on evolution to work that all these fields of science have it wrong? And you a fundamentalist Christian have it right? You think you are really smarter?

  5. Rowland Nelken says:

    JWs, Anonymous JW brother, are a whole load of things that, in their desperate attempts to seem other, that they claim they are not.

    JWs are Biblical fundamentalists and creationists. They are a doomsday cult and a minor sect in christendom. They are also, of course part of the world which, in their haughty and obscene manner, they affect to despise.

    I look forward to the day when this misery making outfit, and that horrible and ridiculous cloud of impending Armageddon which JWdom made to glower over my otherwise happy childhood, is flushed down history’s toilet.

  6. Little Sis says:

    One thing, as a born in JW that blew my mind, is that witnesses believe men are 6,000 or so years old, per the insight book under Adam. There are fossilized remains of humans much older than this. Explain that JWs without reverting to Carbon dating is inaccurate. It most certainly is not, especially combined with other methods.

  7. Strahd says:

    Cedars gets into a little generalising with the ‘If scientists say all life evolved’ nonsense. Not all do. Fact is that both the JW group and Cedars are wrong. The Bible clearly states six literal days. As for evolution, simply put, if it was a fact as opposed to the theory we should have millions of fossilised evidence showing us the intermediate stages between one complete species and the next, but we do not. A T Rex is a T Rex, a lion is a lion, a dog a dog. You accept the clear evidence in front of you. The rest is supposition and conjecture.

    • Caroline says:

      Strahd, if the Bible is factual, then the flood was 4,500 years ago and if Noah did not take care of millions and millions of species, then there would be tons and tons of fossils that are in intermediate stages of evolution.

      Nobody knows how we got here but species do evolve in that the strongest survive and the weaker die out. That is what evolution is all about.

      Whether there is a higher power that made everything is not provable or provable but to say “God made it” is just one guess.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      And, of course, if the bible is literally true, then light was around before the sun was created and Noah and family not only managed to get to Australia and back in double quick time loaded with every species of kangaroo and wallaby etc., but also with sufficient forage wherewith to feed them during the flood. All very plausible!

      And as for theories; I dare say you have grave doubts about the theory of gravity preventing you from floating off into outer space!

  8. Strahd says:

    What we are really talking about is genetic diversification within a species, and that is what we have, genetic material created by God from the onset, hence the many breeds within the feline and canine lines for example, or the human races, but there is no fossil evidence for one species changing into another. In fact, if that was the case, most of the fossil evidence would show those million year stages with the final evolutionary versions only comprising of a small percentage of the total. It is about logic more than anything else. The fact that the fossil record does not provide support for Darwinian evolution rules it out as even a viable theory in this instance, and I have not even touched on the fact that humans show behavioural and cognitive traits that offer no survival advantage in the Darwinian mould, namely music, art and to wonder about the nature of the universe.

    Noah needed to only take a small representation of the animal species that would have later diversified due to the genetic material present in them, albeit not changed into another completely different species.That genetic material is lost, diversified out, not gained.

    Marsupials are present in Australia with some representation in South America, the continents after the flood divided in a relatively fast time , lower sea levels due to the climatic effects just post flood meant that species could travel via land bridges that connected the continents. The relative isolated nature of Australia meant that marsupials could survive in Australia, although they are still holding their own in the light of some introduced species from the northern hemisphere.

    Within that short period of time after the flood there would not be enough fossil evidence to show that once Kangaroos inhabited an area north of the equatorial line. The millions of bison that once roamed the United States of America have left virtually no fossils. Not surprising that smaller populations under migration pressure from competitors and predators, and thus living in only one area for a few generations at most, should leave no fossils.

    • Ricardo says:

      @Strahd,
      Brilliant comment. I will make a copy of it and keep it in my file of useful things from this site.

      Do you have any thoughts on carbon dating?

      At uni I was taught that carbon dating was based on how much radioactive carbon there was in a sample. As carbon 14 loses its radioactivity, it can be dated. But that understanding depends on a constant amount of carbon having radioactivity in the first place, which depends on the sunlight hitting the surface of the planet.

      If there was a thick expanse of water surrounding the planet (which came down in Noah’s flood), there would be less radioactive carbon being produced, and thus dating methods that did not take this into account would make it seem those times were very long ago (into the millions) when really they were just thousands of years ago.

      I think that someone who knows more about that should look into it.

      • Rowland Nelken says:

        Oh Dear, More folk hooked on this ‘kind’ word in the opening chapters of Genesis, as if it is of some significance. Hence we get this absurd fantasy of ‘micro evolution’ whereby genetic mutations arbitrarily cease, in order that the ill defined ‘kind’ barrier of Genesis is not crossed.

        In order to discover the origin of life’s diversity, the starting point has to be life itself. The only reason these creationists, whether or no they are JWs, get themselves in such a state of ignorance, is that they are hooked on the absurd notion that no discoveries can ever call into question the absolute inerrant god issued TRUTH of an awkward combination of two old middle eastern stories.

      • outandabout says:

        But, Ricardo, you are Australian and so should know that the Aborigines have lived continuously on the continent for 40,000 yrs. How did they survive the flood?
        Also, DNA testing of races has proven at least two other human species roamed the earth and mated with us. If you are of European origin, you have Neanderthal genes in you. Not only that, the same study has found that sub-Saharan Africans are the only race not tainted by these other two types of human.
        These findings should figure in your search for truth.

        • Ricardo says:

          @outandabout,

          Hello. It’s not often I get to talk to you. Thanks for your input.

          Unfortunately, the Aboriginals didn’t leave a whole lot of records about how long they have been here. The length of time they have been here keeps changing, so it seems it is not an exact science. A book my son is using for school says 15,000 years. Who knows, and who can prove it? Was it 40,000 or 15,000 or 4,500 years? What basis is there for whichever time? Unfortunately, things here have become so politically correct that to question the 40,000 year theory is likely to have one denounced as being racist.

          Maybe where you are it is easier to question such things. I do keep my eyes open for anything to do with how long the Aboriginals have been here, and about Hobbits found in Indonesia, and about the genes said to be passed to us by the Neanderthals. However, experience has told me that science can suddenly change estimates and understandings based on surprise discoveries, and so it is often best to let some time go by for further research on a topic before I decide on a personal belief. There have been conflicting conclusions made by scientists on these discoveries, and at the moment I can’t work out which if any of the interpretations are worth taking notice of.

          • Rowland Nelken says:

            I am converted! Nothing ever anywhere can call into question the absolute and eternal inerrant literal TRUTH of god’s word the bible, and its one TRUE interpretation. Anyone who disbelieves deserves to be executed at an imminent Armageddon.

          • outandabout says:

            One of the estimates is now 60,000 yrs, Ricardo, and as you say, estimates often change but usually the original estimates are conservative if they’re not too sure about something. Even if the figure is later found to be 50% too high, there’s trouble and you mark my words, religions will try to shoe-horn the findings into the bible and then claim the ‘fact’ was always there. Just like they did with Galileo’s discovery of a spherical Earth.
            And just wait until they have to shoe-horn in at least two other human species that were roaming the Earth the same time as us and us mating with them and also Negroes being the only pure race. DNA testing is hard to dis-prove.
            God is Black, man. Get used to it.

          • Ricardo says:

            @Rowland,
            You have made the ability to say nothing in your comments quite an art form.

          • Ricardo says:

            @outandabout,
            A speaker came to our hall some years ago and said that from the analysis that was made of genetic material of the Neanderthals and homosapiens, there was found to be no intermixing. The two species were not connected at all.

            I thought that was interesting, so I got onto the Internet to look things up. I don’t know where he got his information (I don’t know the brother) but I could not find anything like that on the net. I could only find what you yourself have brought out. I have been waiting and waiting for further information, further tests. I was expecting a lot of work to be done on this.

            I mean, if it is true this is exciting news. Unfortunately I have heard nothing new.

            Is it possible that you have? Have there been any further tests or studies into these genes to find out more?

          • Ricardo says:

            @outandabout,
            I hope I’m not overwhelming you, but I have to share some things with you from today.

            On tv, on a nature show from Australia about Australia, it said the Aboriginals had been here 17,000 years ago, maybe even 30,000 years ago.

            Starts to sound like the GB trying to interpret Jesus’ illustrations. Flip, flop, flip, flop.

            Whichever way they have used to calculate the Aboriginals’ presence in this country, it seems an inexact science.

            The second point was a newspaper report today about the Hobbits. An Australian study has found that the Hobbits from Flores were not related to Homo erectus as first thought, but rather to Homo habilis, and that four human species lived on the islands, possibly intermingling.

            The article finishes with this: “The findings contradict a hypothesis that the Hobbits shrunk when stranded on an island with little food…”

            Again an inexact science. Thus the need to wait and see what can really be found out. It seems a lot depends on the interpretation of a particular researcher. And again, sounds like the GB explaining one of Jesus’ illustrations.

            Soon, one scientist will come up with an overlapping generation theory (just joking).

            Kind regards.

  9. Strahd says:

    Hello Ricardo, you made some valid points in relation to the duration of the Australian Aborigines in Australia. That 40,000 year figure was thrown at the Aborigines by secular non Aboriginal scientists and has nothing to do with the actual time the Aboriginals inhabited Australia. They also have flood legends by the way. The Bundaba people tell of a story of a man with his wives in a canoe that survived a great flood unleashed by Ngowungu the Great Father because he was angry with men, later a bird with a leaf in its mouth flew in front of them to show them the way to Mt Broome where they landed, echoes of the Genesis flood.

  10. Strahd says:

    Radiocarbon and calender years are two different things. Since no reliable historically dated artifacts exist which are older than 5,000 years, it has not been possible to determine the relationship of radiocarbon years to calendar years for objects which yield dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years. Materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years.

    Carbon 14 dating is based on the assumption that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and that its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or even reasonable. It is thought by some that carbon 14 can be used to adequately date the decay rate in organic material such as coal, wood and seashells, the carbon 14 isotope decay rate turning it back into nitrogen over a period of time. It is a flawed method in that objects said to be billions of years old such as diamond have carbon 14, but they shouldn’t if they were actually billions of years old.

    You are correct about the differences in the atmospheric conditions that were present in the earlier times. Decay rates can occur in accelerated spurts. Carbon might have been 300 to 700 times higher in the pre Flood biosphere than what we have today. Let us not forget the longer life spans of the generations that existed up to the flood, also for a short time afterwards, again atmospheric differences.

    Radiocarbon dating for less than 3500 years old is probably a little more close to accurate, but then again even in the modern age testing has shown us that the amount of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950s. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field or other factors.

    • Ricardo says:

      @Strahd,
      Thanks for that additional information. I haven’t had to deal with science for many years now and have forgotten or been unaware of various things. Good effort, Strahd.

  11. Strahd says:

    In regards to the pre flood atmosphere genesis makes note of the division of waters and water above the firmament, namely heaven. A water canopy would give much protection against the harmful effects of cosmic radiation, thus the 900 year plus lifespans. The subsequent greenhouse effect meant that sub tropical environments existed from pole to pole, palm tree fossils have turned up in Alaska for example.

    • Caroline says:

      Strahd, according to the Bible, it was 23 feet of rain water that covered the highest mountains and two separate flood stories, one where it rained for 40 days and another story where it rained a year.

      Also, according to the flood account, Jehovah killed every man, woman and child and all the animals on the earth because angels forsook their proper place and cohabited with women and created a wicked generation of people and they were giants so there should be tons of giant skeletons in excavations and not even one has been found and also wasn’t it only Jehovah and Jesus who was able to “create” human bodies so why penises on those angels and how did they create bodies with penises and why the sex drive to want to cohabit with human women and why kill all the animals too and weren’t there divisions where there were oceans already and supposedly God killed every man, woman, child and animals all over the earth due to those angels. Do you really believe that and what wicked things had all those animals did to deserve being killed all over the world?

      Look up those scriptures about the angels in the Society’s literature and you will never find any answer to those questions.

      There were tons of flood stories with giants way before the Bible was written.

    • John Redwood says:

      Strahd

      Your comments read like those from Watchtower publications over 40 years old. I hope you understand that these explanations were passed off to Jehovah’s witnesses for decades, but they are complete fabrications which do not stand up to any kind of scientific data. Where in science do we find evidence of 900+ year lifespans, and the justification of a canopy to account for such longevity? This is an assertion from fiction, not from reality.

      The attempt to bend science around the Bible is a last ditch effort of creationists such as Jehovah’s Witnesses to rationalize their literal interpretation of the Bible in a world where this is no longer possible. We simply know too much, and Witnesses are pressed into an inescapable corner. It has been more than 26 years since the Watchtower organization has even attempted to print an article rallying against carbon dating. Yet as we know, when it suits their chronology, they occasionally attempt to use carbon dating for support. You simply can’t have it both ways, and there is simply no basis for invalidating the carbon clock for measurements over 4000-5000 years. Evidence and science does not support this. Should you research this objectively, you will find this to be the case

      JR

  12. Strahd says:

    I have noticed that there are no real counter arguments here, more along the lines of ‘this is not scientific Strahd’.

    Look at it this way, I have too little faith to believe in the Darwinian fairy tale of fish eventually tuning into humans given the lack of evidence for one species turning into a completely different species.

    Might as well believe that some humans actually turn into werewolves.

  13. Strahd says:

    Note that some animal species inhabiting certain areas for a short duration of time, less than a few centuries, leave little in the way of fossil remains.A substantial population needs to exist, much less the chances of finding pre flood human remains destroyed in the cataclysmic flood, especially when one considers the even smaller population of Nephilim that emerged at the end of the antediluvian era.
    Many flood accounts speak of a creator type being angry with people for some crime, sin or particular wrong doing and unleashed a flood as a consequence of the need to punish man.

    We are made in the image of God, conscious reasoning beings, in the same way a certain proportion of Angels had a choice between right and wrong and sinned by allowing themselves ( prompted by Satan ) to descend to the Earth in human form to take up relationships with women. Of course they are forbidden to do that now.

    You will note that God sent messengers who took up human form for short durations to undertake certain tasks, saving Lot and his family from the destruction on Sodom and Gomorrah. We have to be careful not to allow current political trends, the disputed liberalist gender identity fashions to influence our study of past events.

    God needed to destroy the pre Flood civilisation or it would have led to the destruction of the world in a short amount of time, think sinful humans who rejected God and having almost millennium long life spans, what they would have eventually created under the guidance of Satan, fallen angels or demons, the Nephilim, and of course our own desires.

    God made the only logical choice left, namely destroy that civilisation and forever cut off the powers of demons to take on human guise again.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Your beliefs in Nephilim, angels, demons, leprechauns, goblins, dragons and centaurs are not what this page is set up to challenge.

      The aim, as expressed by John Redwood, is to hold the WT outfit to account regarding its cruel practices, among them the sheltering of paedophiles, the unnecessary deaths through the blood transfusion ban and the wrecking of families through shunning.

      I hope you understand that.

    • outandabout says:

      God did not make the ‘logical’ choice, Strahd. The logical, kind, understanding, forgiving, compassionate, loving and above all, intelligent thing for God to do would be to appear before his errant children and tell them the score.
      If God made us in his image, why are our bodies so flawed? – our backs, for one. Is that because we’re designed to live our lives on our knees anyway?

  14. Strahd says:

    The Jehovah’s Witnesses are like all the Christian groups in that they have some things right, some not so right.

    I have had to educate a few Jehovah’s Witnesses who refused to acknowledge Christ as the Lord Christ by pointing out, literally, that in their New World Translation that they use it clearly states Lord Jesus Christ in a few passages.

    What I get here on this site is that some have an overwhelming need to fully discredit a religious organisation. This falls outside of the realm of rational thinking and seems more personal than anything else.

    • John Redwood says:

      Most individuals who say that JWs have “some things right, some not so right” are merely arguing Christianity and interpretation of the Bible, which is a controversial piece of literature to begin with, and which has been passed along for centuries, well before science and technology took root within the confines of mankind’s history. None of us were around for the origins of this book or any of its variations, and we have no evidence of the authenticity of most of its contents. While there are passages which intersect reality (Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, etc.) – most of the Bible has to be taken on faith, with its fables and allegories. So you can debate with JWs all you like – but you are simply arguing over things which you yourself have no real knowledge.

      As for discrediting a religious organization, we are well within our rights to call out any organization for its practices which are demonstrably harmful, most notably their doctrines on blood, on child abuse reporting, and on shunning. Without these harmful practices, we would be without the need for this website. Discrediting the practices of a cult is the most rational thing we can do, and we will never apologize for making this world a better place by educating the public.

      Is it personal? I have to chuckle at this – of course it’s personal. It affects the lives of millions of citizens of this globe – not only JWs, but all those associated with Witnesses by family connections and other links.

      Every author, journalist or writer has an angle – a viewpoint. Our viewpoint is that everyone should have the right to believe as they wish, but that such beliefs should never interfere with the rights of those who choose to leave a religion, including an organization which functions as a cult.

      JR

  15. Strahd says:

    Richard. thank you for your feedback, but you are trying to make a counter argument where there isn’t one. Christians, those who believe, are united, irregardless of denomination, by their recognition of Christ as their saviour. We are talking about the core elements that make up the faith. Of course there will be some debate amongst individuals about certain passages, for instance those of us that hold to the literal interpretation of six days and those with a different opinion on the subject.

    Those differences pale in comparison to the debates between secular scientists and other proponents of evolution in disagreement about the theory, and it is still a theory, of evolution. There is actually a long tradition of academic attempts to interpret and apply theories that were set out by Darwin in On the Origin of Species. Lets not get into the debate about defining ‘fitness’ for example. I still remember the spat between Dawkins and Wilson with Wilson advocating multi level selection theory.

    I came across this site by accident when searching for articles on creation, young Earth and old Earth and so on, but was mildly amused to find that this site was more of a Christian bashing site. I am against attacks against Christian denominations wether Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist or Jehovah’s Witnesses. Christ said that wolves would enter the Christian fold, that is true.

    This does not detract from the civilising influence Christianity has had on western civilisation and the world.

    If you need to get political I think your concerns should be directed at the liberalist globalists that have worked to erode Christianity in western or European civilisation and at the same time allowed the west to be overrun by Muslims and the terrorism associated with Islam.

    • Ricardo says:

      @Strahd,
      You meant to type John Redwood in this comment, not Richard, I believe.

      Looks like you stirred up a hornets nest here. Man, they are circling to sting you.

      I appreciate your efforts and applaud your support of Christian organizations. Personally, I found your explanations quite refreshing. I think the other commentors may have to agree to disagree with your logical reasoning. Full marks for your effort.

      • Strahd says:

        Right you are Ricardo, it should have been John, thanks for picking up on that typo.

        I think this hornets nest needed to be stirred just a little.

        Some posts back one of the commentators said that the aim of the page was to hold, and I quote, ‘the WT outfit to account regarding its cruel practices’.

        However, the title clearly read ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses “do not agree with creationism”, and that is what I was concentrating on, what drew me to this site, before the mob with personal grudges against the JW organisation started to get into things outside the scope of the subject of this page.

        It was interesting to comment on the creationist side of things since I am a fan of the Creation magazine published by Creation Ministries.

        Thanks for your kind words.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

applications-education-miscellaneous.png

Comment posting guidelines:

Kindly observe the following requirements before posting any comments to our articles or pages:


  • ABUSIVE COMMENTS - Do not post comments that include swear words or may be considered abusive, lewd, blasphemous, obscene or threatening
  • ILLEGAL COMMENTS - Do not post comments that condone or propose illegal activity, or that breach copyright law
  • OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS - Do not post comments that are off-topic and bear no relation to the page or article
  • RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY - Do not post comments that are evangelical in nature or may be construed as imposing one person's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) over those of another
  • LANGUAGE - Visitors from all countries and language groups are welcome. You may post comments in languages other than English, but we would appreciate if you could make any such comments brief. We would also be grateful if you could run any such comments through Google Translate and convert these to English, but this is not an absolute requirement.
  • LINKS - You may post links to third party websites, so long as (1) you limit these to 2 links per comment, and (2) the content on these links doesn't contravene ANY of the first four points. Specifically, you may not post URLs to websites that are evangelical in nature. Our links page has an extensive list of such sites for any who are curious about Christian beliefs in the context of Jehovah's Witnesses.

JWSurvey.org thanks all visitors in advance for respectfully observing these guidelines. Any who persistently fail to do so, despite warnings, may find themselves blocked from making further comments at the discretion of the site moderators, whose decision will be final and not open for debate.