Why Watchtower has no place criticizing other Christian faiths as unscientific
avatar

The latest Awake! magazine ends up endorsing the views of the very people it sets out to criticize

The latest Awake! magazine ends up endorsing the views of the very people it sets out to criticize

Regular visitors to this website will be aware that I welcome readers of all religious or non-religious backgrounds and persuasions.

Though I am personally agnostic/deist (open to the existence of a creator of the universe but doubtful that he, or it, takes an interest in human affairs), my aim is to avoid offending any individual, especially on the issue of whether they believe in God or not.

I welcome open, honest and dialectic discussion from all quarters in pursuit of truth.

That said, I unashamedly embrace the theory of evolution as, not just theory, but proven fact. The evidence is, from where I stand, all around us if we will only look at it.

Those brave enough to peer beyond Watchtower’s bubble of influence (and ignorance) will note that evolution has long ceased to be questioned by serious scholars and academics, who have moved on to more productive discussion as to whether there IS a God who employed evolution as a creative tool or not.

With this in mind, you will understand the dismay with which I received the new March 2014 Awake!, which bears the title “The Untold Story of Creation.” As you can imagine, there is nothing “untold” about Watchtower’s story of creation. They have merely repackaged it, divested themselves of words they disapprove of, and spun it as something unique and revolutionary – a rare epiphany to which they are the sole trustees.

Before getting down to business with their article, the Awake! writers engage in some light target practice against their favorite bad guys – Christendom.

“…Christendom’s leaders, including so-called creationists and fundamentalists, have spun the Bible account of creation into numerous tales that deviate from what the Bible really says. These interpretations fly in the face of scientific fact.” (March 2014 Awake!, page 4)

The reader is thus left with the impression that (1) Jehovah’s Witnesses are not “creationists,” and that (2) they adhere to “scientific fact.”

Watchtower is so desperate to distance itself from the likes of Ken Ham (pictured) that it strays into misrepresenting itself

Watchtower is so desperate to distance itself from the likes of Ken Ham (pictured) that it strays into misrepresenting itself

As I have already explained on this website, Jehovah’s Witnesses are unquestionably creationists, whatever Watchtower may say to the contrary. Creationism is (according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary) “the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect.”

Watchtower would struggle to argue that this is NOT what they believe, and yet they firmly repudiate the “creationist” tag for no other reason than that they don’t like the stigma associated with it. They shudder at the thought of sharing the same cramped pigeon-hole as the likes of Ken Ham and the Creation Museum, so they denounce creationism entirely – even though not all creationists believe in literal 24-hour creative days, or the Earth being only six thousand years old.

And so we find the following words on page 5 of the same article…

“What about the widespread creationist belief that God created the universe in six literal 24-hour days? This concept, widely rejected by scientists, is based on a gross misunderstanding of the Bible account.”

Watchtower overlooks the fact that there is considerable latitude for positing varying “stories” of how creation took place within the creationist sphere, provided these are broadly united in their condemnation of evolution.

By thus pedantically dancing around and repudiating the creationist label, Watchtower engages in ‘word snobbery’ as I suggest in the above YouTube video. Even if the shoe fits, Watchtower refuses to wear it if it isn’t trendy enough and makes them look silly.

Though claiming they honor “scientific fact” and denouncing those whose views are “widely rejected by scientists,” Watchtower is quite happy to trample all over the conclusions of the scientific community when it suits them. Take for example the following, also on page 5…

“In the Bible account, each of the six creative days could have lasted for thousands of years.”

Watchtower grossly undervalues the age of our planet

Watchtower grossly undervalues the age of our planet

To most Witnesses, this will seem a reasonable statement on the face of it. But as with most Watchtower pronouncements, the devil is in the detail. When you consider that the Earth is known to be 4.5 billion years old, Watchtower’s “thousands of years” quote falls woefully short.

Simply put, six creative days which “could” have spanned only “thousands of years” would not come close to covering the colossal age of our planet. It would be like saying: “the ninety-year-old man is six ‘days’ old, with each ‘day’ lasting a few hours.”

“Thousands of years” just doesn’t cut it, and the lambasting of other offshoots of Christendom as unscientific becomes remarkably hypocritical.

But the most reprehensible part of this magazine is its utter misrepresentation of evolution, and attempts to smear it as foolish and silly. Take, for example, page 5 which says…

“Supposedly, at some point a bacteria-like, self-replicating organism arose, gradually branching out into all the species that exist today. This would imply that ultimately the mind-bogglingly complex human actually evolved from bacteria.”

Of course when you take the utmost extremes in the journey of life from microbial form all the way through to intelligent homo-sapiens, you make evolution appear insane. But just because something is unlikely doesn’t make it impossible – and it becomes far less impossible once you factor in billions of years and almost limitless possibilities for subtle mutations and incremental adaptations forged by environmental influences.

But that wasn’t what really made my blood boil.

It was this…

“The kinds of animals and plants created by God have obviously undergone changes and have produced variations within the kinds. In many cases, the resulting life-forms are remarkably different from one another. The Bible account of creation does not conflict with the scientific observation that variations occur within a kind.”

Again, most Witnesses will nod in agreement and find this a reasonable position to assume – a sort of “halfway house” between fundamentalist nutbags and non-believers.

But wait – did Watchtower not just acknowledge that animals and plants “obviously” undergo changes? Is this not what the scientific community calls “evolution?”

You would think so, but you must then remember that only as recently as the October 15, 2013 Watchtower (pp.7-11) was the following assertion made…

“One widespread false teaching that blinds people to the truth about God is the doctrine of evolution.”

The only way to marry the Awake! acknowledgment with the Watchtower denunciation is to say that YES animals and plants change, but only within a species (or “kind”) and thus we are not allowed to use the word “evolution” to describe these changes because it has been declared a “false teaching.”

The above obviously makes no sense at all. It is nothing more than playing word games and losing badly.

If you admit that living things change on whatever level, and adapt to their circumstances, then you simply must admit that evolution is fact. Instead, Watchtower shirks the term either because it doesn’t like the connotations, or (more likely) because it wants to stick with what it has been saying for decades and avoid backpedaling.

But it gets worse.

Creationist minister Ray Comfort finds his beliefs simultaneously criticized and endorsed in this magazine

Creationist minister Ray Comfort finds his beliefs simultaneously criticized and endorsed in this magazine

Take another look at the following assertion: “The Bible account of creation does not conflict with the scientific observation that variations occur within a kind.”

You would think that, if the above wording is a widely accepted “scientific observation,” there would be no shortage of instances where the phrase “variations occur within a kind” is employed. So, what does a quick Google search of this phrase reveal?

I tried this yesterday and found six search results for this phrase. One result was the Awake! article itself, so immediately we were down to five results for the whole internet. Of the remaining five, three originated from the written work of one man… Ray Comfort.

Specifically, Ray wrote a 50-page foreword to his abridged version of Darwin’s Origin of the Species, criticizing evolution, in which he said the following (bold is mine)…

“Small scale variations occur within a kind, though nothing new actually comes into being (“evolves”) in microevolution.”

If you are unfamiliar with who Ray Comfort is, please look him up. He is a well-known Christian evangelist and proponent of, you guessed it… creationism.

By way of a character reference, I would urge you read his Wikipedia page and learn of how he deleted four chapters from HIS version of Darwin’s great work – chapters that offered the “strongest evidence” for evolution. The man is therefore both a religious fundamentalist and an obvious charlatan, and yet this is precisely the sort of person Watchtower simultaneously condemns and agrees with in its war against a common enemy… evolution.

If this is not clear hypocrisy, ignorance and duplicity, what is?

By this point in my article, many Witnesses and readers who have been taught by Watchtower to repudiate evolution will be feeling distinctly uneasy with my defense of it. I know only too well how you will be feeling, because I was the same until very recently. In fact, one of the public talks I used to give as an elder (circa 2008) was a half-hour rebuttal of evolution using Watchtower’s flawed reasoning (I still have the recording).

All I would say to such ones is to please look at the evidence, and at least furnish yourself with some grasp of what evolution purports to be rather than Watchtower’s demeaning caricature of it.

I know a little on the subject, enough to grasp the basics, but I still consider myself a layperson. For a decent outline of what evolution is, I would strongly recommend you listen to the following words of the late Christopher Hitchens, a hero of mine, who died within a year of speaking in this debate.

I know this article will not meet with universal approval from my readers, but I cannot apologise for defending scientifically established fact. Whether you are a believer or not, I’m afraid evolution is here to stay. Those like Watchtower who insist on denouncing it and/or replacing it with their own half-baked unsupported pseudo-science will only become more isolated and discredited as human knowledge continues its relentless advance.

What really bruises me in all of this is the thought of all the Witness children who will pick up and read this magazine, perhaps as part of their “family worship.” If Watchtower succeeds in duping thinking adults into swallowing its backwards lies and quackery, at least some blame can be apportioned to those who readily allow themselves to be swept along without doing objective research.

The same cannot be said of young, impressionable minds that can be only too easily stultified and hindered by the preachments of a cult that has nothing more than self-perpetuation as its sole preoccupation.

 

new-cedars-signature2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Further reading…

Bookmark the permalink.

187 Responses to Why Watchtower has no place criticizing other Christian faiths as unscientific

  1. Rowland Nelken says:

    And, as I’ve mentioned before, taking a pot at creationists is like taking a pot at Christendom. JWs are both creationists and a religion (as well as a church and a fundamentalist sect).

    They somehow feel the need to pretend they are separate from all the things they condemn, which includes, of course, the world, of which they form, alas, an integral part.

    JWs, please remember yours is a fundamentalist, creationist sect of Christendom, and a rotten little exploitative church. In an open society you are, of course, free, to condemn Christendom, Creationists, Fundamentalists, the Churches and the World. Please remember, however, that you are but an obnoxious feature and/or example of all the above.

  2. Alec Holmes says:

    “The doctrine of evolution.” Loaded language. Science doesn’t have doctrines nor is it a religion. Science is based on evidence, it’s constantly seeking evidence so as to find what is true. Whether we believe in the established fact of evolution or not the evidence won’t change.

  3. Hakizimana Jean de Dieu says:

    In my country, these guys are registered under the name “Religious Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses”!! In their STATUTES, Article 2 is about their Mission. They say Organization’s activities include “Helping morally and mentally men, women, and children through missionary activity, distribution and use of the Bible and Bible-based literature to explain and teach the Bible and related scientific, historical, social, and literature facts;”
    Does the magazine match the mission.

    Their “sister proof” Bible should read “Caesar’s things to Caesar, but Science’s things to Science”!
    By the way, how long did it take for Jehovah to create these she-bears? (2 Kings 2:24) . . .Finally he turned behind him and saw them and called down evil upon them in the name of Jehovah. Then two she-bears came out from the woods and went tearing to pieces forty-two children of their number. . .

  4. ElearElda says:

    Very interesting article, Cedars.
    I always thought that Jdubs are not creationist. :-)
    I also thought that they are not fundamentalist also. Both proved to be true. Merriam-Webster definition — it was enough for me. Their semantic differentiation is only their. No serious scholar cannot agree with them.

    Although it’s extremely difficult to reshape our views, we as former Jdubs must rebuild it anew. So many lies, no sincerity. And sometimes we read their magazines without proper understanding, what they really means. That’s why I really appreciate your work. As an former alder for 5 years and serious student of Bible Greek I AM ABLE to argue about some Bible points, but because of learning about science mainly from WT article I am crippled in that matter. I am grateful that about personal development I didn’t do the same mistake… But studied psychology and learn many things. :-)

    Thank you for your helpful work!!!

  5. ElearElda says:

    Very interesting article, Cedars.
    I always thought that Jdubs are not creationist. :-)
    I also thought that they are not fundamentalist also. Both proved to be true. Merriam-Webster definition — it was enough for me. Their semantic differentiation is only their. No serious scholar cannot agree with them.

    Although it’s extremely difficult to reshape our views, we as former Jdubs must rebuild it anew. So many lies, no sincerity. And sometimes we read their magazines without proper understanding, what they really means. That’s why I really appreciate your work. As an former alder for 5 years and serious student of Bible Greek I AM ABLE to argue about some Bible points, but because of learning about science mainly from WT article I am crippled in that matter. I am grateful that about personal development I didn’t do the same mistake… But studied psychology and learn many things. :-)

    Thank you for your helpful work!!

  6. JBob says:

    The battle of semantics, again. The Watchtower has long-distanced and distinguished its teachings on Creation from the plebian, evangelical literal creationist idea and notions of a 24-hour creation day and other literal concepts that sprang from this. The Watchtower with other gymnastic feats in logic is well accomplished in feats of semantics the Cirque de Soleil would envy when it comes to choice and re-purposing the lexicon–the tell-tale marks of a cult.

    Since this cult has its own dogma regarding how Creation happened (because it maps into the chronology for eschatology), it finds itself on an ice floe headed toward the warm Gulf Stream [closest to its North American HQ] isolated amid discussions other evangelical religions have on Evolution versus Creationism. From the literal six days arguments to orthodox RCC viewpoints, the Watchtower finds itself alone, perhaps in some insignificant mixed company with Second Adventists and Christadelphians on the matter. Thus, it finds itself in a 3-way, if not a 4-way, battle, fighting scientists on one arm, creationist literalists on the other arm, and orthodox views with its other arm [no wonder HQ wants to send Hindii nationals home with this semblance of being a multi-armed Kali--Redeemer of us all, since Jesus isn't allowed as Mediator..].

  7. tiger says:

    A simple answer to their outright stupidity and forced ignorance on others is this. They constantly use the word adaptation in reference to animals that change state within a species. However they run perilously close to the word evolution when using the term adaption, especially in that context. For the term evolution’s definition in Meriam Websters is “to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state”. In the context of an animals adapting we are speaking of changes into better suited for their environment and often a more complex state. The reality as usual is they are duplicitous.

    Also in reference to the development of the basic building blocks of life they say that the number of combinations needed to create one genome is a mathematical impossibility, (Awake 9/06 p.21-23) “The mathematical probability of the random generation of a single chromosome is less than 1 in 9 trillion, an event so unlikely that it can be considered impossible.” This is a ridiculous horrible distortion and assasination of the truth!

    Consider this, if I held in my hand a pair of dice, number from 1 to 6 on its six sides. The odds of rolling a 12 is 1 in 36. the odds of rolling two 12s in a row are 1/36 x 1/36 for 1 in 1296 and so on until we reach 8 times in a row of rolling 12 where the odds reach 1 in 100 trillion. Simply stated, seemingly unlikely but actually very probable over time. To shut the door on their false conclusion, their is one simple fact that proves it even easier. If you tried to roll the dice and get a 13, that is impossible. The odds of that are 0 in you name any number of tries and it will never happen. However the number 1 followed by any number is not only possible, but in an infinite universe very probable.
    As for the development of the human chromosome most scientists agree that it is a mathematical certainty that it would eventually happen and most likely innumerable times considering the vast availability of the materials needed to make a chromosome and the presence of radioactivity on our planet.

    Finally for something both informative and educational you may enjoy the video detailing a technique known as accelerated evolution. This was used recently in creating new batteries. Scientists took a small organism out of the ocean and applied radiation. Their goal was to cause the organism to mutate so it would be magnetic. They then studied and tested the billions of organism that they hit with radiation and were able to find the organism with the newly acquired property and then began replicating the new organism. This is truly a marvel.

    Simply stated our earth is full of radiation, so much so that the earth spews liquid rock. Otherwise what is the explanation for heat so intense that it can melt rock. Also our sun is full of radiation, all of this causes change. Look at the differences of skin pigmentation for those living closer to the equator.

    Wake up WT readers, the GB and writers at Bethel have an agenda. You summed it up well, $1,000,000,000.00 just in New York, not to mention branches, K.H.s, homes and bank accounts to numerous to count. They want your money and are seeking to enslave your children before they are legally allowed to drive. Truly SICK!

  8. tiger says:

    A simple answer to their outright lies and forced ignorance on others is this. They constantly use the word adaptation in reference to animals that change state within a species. However they run perilously close to the word evolution when using the term adaption, especially in that context. For the term evolution’s definition in Meriam Websters is “to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state”. In the context of an animals adapting we are speaking of changes into better suited for their environment and often a more complex state. The reality as usual is they are duplicitous.

    Also in reference to the development of the basic building blocks of life they say that the number of combinations needed to create one genome is a mathematical impossibility, (Awake 9/06 p.21-23) “The mathematical probability of the random generation of a single chromosome is less than 1 in 9 trillion, an event so unlikely that it can be considered impossible.” This is a ridiculous horrible distortion and assasination of the truth!

    Consider this, if I held in my hand a pair of dice, number from 1 to 6 on its six sides. The odds of rolling a 12 is 1 in 36. the odds of rolling two 12s in a row are 1/36 x 1/36 for 1 in 1296 and so on until we reach 8 times in a row of rolling 12 where the odds reach 1 in 100 trillion. Simply stated, seemingly unlikely but actually very probable over time. To shut the door on their false conclusion, their is one simple fact that proves it even easier. If you tried to roll the dice and get a 13, that is impossible. The odds of that are 0 in you name any number of tries and it will never happen. However the number 1 followed by any number is not only possible, but in an infinite universe very probable.
    As for the development of the human chromosome most scientists agree that it is a mathematical certainty that it would eventually happen and most likely innumerable times considering the vast availability of the materials needed to make a chromosome and the presence of radioactivity on our planet.

    Finally for something both informative and educational you may enjoy the video detailing a technique known as accelerated evolution. This was used recently in creating new batteries. Scientists took a small organism out of the ocean and applied radiation. Their goal was to cause the organism to mutate so it would be magnetic. They then studied and tested the billions of organism that they hit with radiation and were able to find the organism with the newly acquired property and then began replicating the new organism. This is truly a marvel.

    Simply stated our earth is full of radiation, so much so that the earth spews liquid rock. Otherwise what is the explanation for heat so intense that it can melt rock. Also our sun is full of radiation, all of this causes change. Look at the differences of skin pigmentation for those living closer to the equator.

    Wake up WT readers, the GB and writers at Bethel have an agenda. You summed it up well, $1,000,000,000.00 just in New York, not to mention branches, K.H.s, homes and bank accounts to numerous to count. They want your money and are seeking to enslave your children before they are legally allowed to drive. Truly SICK!

  9. H.K. Fauskanger says:

    It is partially amusing, partially irritating to read the self-congratulatory ‘standard Watchtower interpretation’ of Genesis 1-2, which is proudly held forth as the one obviously correct understanding of a story that has sadly been distorted by ‘fundamentalists and creationists’ (which, by any sensible definition, are categories the Witnesses themselves belong to).

    No real evidence, scientific or scriptural, is presented in favor if the preferred interpretation. They just throw in a vague ‘evidently’ here and there. For instance, the Bible text simply says that Yahweh started by creating light. The Bronze Age mythmakers surely felt no need to explain where this light came from. Yet in the Watchtower over-reading, this somehow becomes evidence that the sun and stars already existed, but that at this point a formerly dense atmosphere was made somewhat more transparent so that ‘diffuse light’ reached the earth’s surface. When the actual Bible text says that the deity made the Sun and stars only several ‘days’ later, this in the Watchtower interpretation becomes garbled into an idea that the atmosphere finally became clear and the celestial bodies were ‘made visible’ in the sky. Are the Witnesses really unable to see that this is, at best, a quite peculiar INTERPRETATION and not a simple retelling of the Bible text?

    ‘Creationists and fundamentalists’ are always faulted for believing that the creation days were literal 24-hour-days, as if this is so very obviously NOT what the Bible text intends. Given that the whole story is plainly the origin myth for the weekly cycle observed by the Hebrews (6 days of work + Sabbath), I don’t think we have to doubt that the original authors intended this as a literal week. But apparently Freddie Franz, whose head was always full of antitypes and intricate chronological schemes, had a weakness for the idea that the ‘seventh day’ was a vast period of thousands of years that would finally incorporate the Millennium. This is based on a very special reading of Hebrews 4:11, which is taken to mean that God’s ‘rest’ was continuing into New Testament times and beyond. Hence the New World Translation of Genesis 2:2-3 is very carefully doctored to give the impression that the Seventh Day continued.

    Hence we had the great 1975 fiasco: the notion that 6,000 years after the supposed creation of the human couple in ’4026 BCE’ the world would see the start of the Millennium. The only excuse ever offered for the failure of this concept is that the 6,000 years actually started with the creation of Eve, an unknown period of time after the creation of Adam. Since this notion has never been officially abandoned, I guess the Watchtower is now in effect teaching (however tacitly) that Adam was alone for at least 38 years before Eve came along. I daresay few people get this impression from the Bible text.

    For such ideas to work, two concepts have to be rejected. Firstly, one much of course totally ignore the findings of science regarding the true age and origin of the human race: We MUST be descendants of a single couple that lived around 4000 BCE; any notion of humans gradually emerging from a pre-human stock millions of years ago is anathema. Secondly, the plain and straightforward interpretation of the Bible text – that Yahweh created the world in six 24-hour days – must be emphatically tossed aside in favor of elaborate chronological speculations.

    The same science the writers have just rejected (regarding the age of the human race) is suddenly appealed to as regards the age of the earth: Scientists know that our planet isn’t 6,000 years old, and therefore ‘creationists and fundamentalists’ are wrong! At the same time, the true Watchtower position is so far removed from science that these days, the writers consistently refrain from spelling it out. A few decades ago, Watchtower literature explicitly taught that each creative ‘day’ was 7,000 years long, meaning that the entire history of life on earth only amounts to a few tens of thousands of years. This is of course utterly ludicrous, according to the standard geological timetable.

    The idea of 7,000-year creation days has never been explicitly cancelled, yet nowadays the writers consistently use a compromise wording which only speaks vaguely about ‘thousands of years’. As Cedars points out, this is a quite unfortunate wording. Saying that earth became habitable ‘thousands of years ago’ is like saying that World War I occurred ‘minutes’ ago.

    As usual, the Watchtower is stuck in a bizarre ‘middle position’ which actually isn’t a middle position at all: To any real scientist in the relevant fields, the Watchtower ideas are just minor idiosynchratic variations of the ideas of the same ‘fundamentalists and creationists’ the Witnesses are so eager to distance themselves from. At best the Watchtower interpretation is very marginally ‘better’, somewhat like saying that WWI occurred hours ago is after all more accurate than saying it occurred minutes ago.

    The planet can be allowed to be older than 6,000 years, but not humanity, since the Watchtower wordview absolutely requires a literal Adam and Eve firmly within the Genesis chronological framework. Any amount of change within ‘kinds’ (a scientifically meaningless word) is acceptable, but no ‘kind’ must ever be allowed to accumulate so many changes that it would become another ‘kind’, for that would be actual ‘evolution’ as opposed to mere ‘variation’ (just avoid the dreaded E word – word games are apparently all it takes to save Watchtower theology). I understand they still cling to the notion of a pre-Flood ‘water canopy’ which supposedly covered the earth and collapsed during the Deluge (see page 6 of the Awake referred to). The idea was first proposed by Isaac Vail way back in 1874, but has now been largely discredited even among creationists: It would create a quite unacceptable atmospheric pressure while it existed, and would release an enormous amount of energy when it finally collapsed (Noah would be navigating on boiling water).

    These insights apparently have yet to filter through to the Watchtower writers. Sometimes, then, the science of ‘creationists and fundamentalists’ is actually ahead of Watchtower science.

  10. Alan Feuerbacher says:

    The Watchtower Society is certainly among the most anti-scientific religions. This is especially true of its claims about creation versus evolution, which it invariably and deliberately misrepresents. My favorite quotation describing them is:

    A long acquaintance with the literature of the Witnesses leads one to the conclusion that they live in the intellectual ‘twilight zone.’ That is, most of their members, even their leaders, are not well educated and not very intelligent. Whenever their literature strays onto the fields of philosophy, academic theology, science or any severe mental discipline their ideas at best mirror popular misconceptions, at worst they are completely nonsensical. — Alan Rogerson, “Millions Now Living Will Never Die: A Study of Jehovah’s Witnesses,” p. 116, Constable, London, 1969.

    AlanF

  11. Les Hoy says:

    Ray Comfort is not a Creationist Minister, he is an evangelist
    [link removed as per posting guidelines]

    • Cedars says:

      A silly comment.

      This is from the first line of Ray’s wikipedia page… “Ray Comfort (born December 5, 1949) is a New Zealand-born Christian minister and evangelist.”

      And your evangelical link promoting creationism has been removed.
      By all means try spamming this website more and see what happens…

  12. Hakizimana Jean de Dieu says:

    How can it be said that Jesus could have produced perfect children from an imperfect wife? Would not the children, according to the laws of genetics, have inherited imperfection from their mother?—F. S., England. (w67 5/15 p. 319)!!

    Reading the answer to the above question, I feel like the Watchtower is committing a sin against both SCIENCE.

    we believe that Jesus looked like a Jew, that he had human characteristics that were observable in his mother.
    The question may now arise, Would not Jesus have inherited some imperfection from Mary? No, the Bible plainly shows that Jesus was born perfect. (1 Pet. 2:22; John 8:46) …We should keep in mind that we are not dealing just with genetic laws of dominant and recessive characteristics. No, perfection and imperfection are also involved. We have no experience with the results of uniting perfection with imperfection. Scientists cannot measure human perfection or imperfection resulting from sin. Nor can they predict the powerful effect a perfect male sperm would have on an imperfect ovum. But it is evident from what occurred in Jesus’ case that the perfect male part of the reproduction dominated the imperfection inherent in Mary. Jesus’ perfect Father transferred the perfect life of his Son to the womb of Mary and the result was a wholly perfect offspring, Jesus.—Gal. 4:4.
    Accepting what the inspired Scriptures say took place as to Jesus’ conception and birth, we can conclude that by reason of Jesus’ being entirely perfect he could have fathered perfect children even with an imperfect wife. Of course, that was not God’s will for Jesus. (Heb. 10:5-10; Matt. 26:39) Nonetheless, that potential was apparently there.

    Science is under attack!!!

  13. ldrnomo says:

    Nice article, made a lot of sense.

  14. theVoice says:

    Hi Cedars,

    Thank you for another great post.

    However I was arrested by your comment that evolution

    “…has long ceased to be debated by serious scholars and academics..”

    Although I respect your opinion on how life got started, I think the above statement is far from true. In fact the debate is hotter than ever!!

    Don’t get me wrong, I make no apology for your attack on the weak/hypocritical stance the WT makes in trying to defend its position. I remember hearing a debate on a radio program involving an evolutionary biologist and he ripped into the Society. His particular bone of contention was the book ‘Life How Did It Get Here – by evolution or creation?’ Do you remember that? Well any case his ire was the way the Society had misquoted scientific papers and had borrowed information from the most unreliable sources to make their point.

    I make no claim to having any kind of acedemic understanding of evolutionary biology but I have the following observations to make:

    1. I write computer programs as part of my living. Typically the smallest error results in a program crashing and it takes meticulous debbuging to trap errors and produce a stable program. Now Biologist often say the DNA code is like a program – that being the case I do not know of any program on earth that could come about by chance or just evolve. In fact unless programs are actively maintained (patched, updated etc – think of the continuous updates you have to install on your Windows computer) they tend to fail and are no longer fit for purpose. In my simple and unqualified opinion, if that is the case for human programs, then what of biological programs?

    2. There are respected scientist that do not hold to the evolution model. I went to a lecture by Micheal Behe who serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and he does not believe in evolution. One of the points he made was that many of his fellow academics also do not believe it either. But he said peer pressure did not allow them to raise their doubts. Also consider Stephen Myers who I heard debate an evolutionary Biologist and he made a strong case for ID. His latest book ‘Darwin’s Doubt’ focuses on a problem recognized by Darwin concerning the so called ‘Cambrian’ explosion.

    I could go on, but no doubt we will have to agree to disagree on this subject. However I know you are a balanced individual, and have come to your own conclusion. I respect that. But to those that might be wavering in their belief about God as the Intelligent Agent behind life, don’t throw out the baby with the bath water, just because of the failings of the WT. I for one am unashamedly a proponent of ID and the debate is far from over for me or in the scientific community.

    Finally Cedars, thank you for post and continued hard work to expose the LIE, which is the Watchtower/Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    • A searcher for truth says:

      A very good article Cedars, and well written.

      From my perspective on things and understanding at this stage, both are correct, and that is creation via evolution as both criteria fit this perfectly.
      That is there is evidence of design but also evidence of evolution.

      One little seed can hold all the information necessary to grow into a large tree, this does involve sophisticated programming that is beyond any known science of today.

      But just imagine a seed that is designed to adapt and change at various intervals, now that is truly amazing and that is exactly what our fossil records show has happened over millions of years.

    • Cedars says:

      Thanks for your kind words about my work.

      I agree that the precise mechanics of evolution continues to be debated by serious academics (which is only a good thing), but I contend that its existence does not. I have thus edited the sentence to read as follows to avoid confusion…

      “evolution has long ceased to be questioned by serious scholars and academics”

  15. HMC 2011 says:

    ET is nonsense. ET is only faith and Jehovah’s Witnesses are totalitarian organization.

  16. redsanguine says:

    Thank you for your informative articles Cedars! One slight correction, JWs say that the creative days start with the earth already formed, so they don’t make any claims about the age of the planet. However, they do make general claims about the length of the creative days. Based on fossil evidence, life has been around much longer than that. So they are still obviously wrong from a scientific standpoint.

    Your overall point is still valid, but for the sake of accuracy, you might want to tweak the caption under the pic of the globe – “Watchtower grossly undervalues the age of our planet.” – and perhaps tweak the language a bit in the article?

    Thanks again for your blog, I always learn a lot!

    • Cedars says:

      Glad you like the article!

      “JWs say that the creative days start with the earth already formed, so they don’t make any claims about the age of the planet”

      I already gave this some thought. Rather than being “already formed,” according to the bible the earth started off “formless and waste.” Days 1 through 4 are all to do with fashioning the planet into its recognizable form. Only when we get to days 5 and 6 do living creatures come into the equation. So, I know where you’re coming from (i.e. the sphere of the earth representing its geology), but the partition of the oceans on day 3 indicates at least some geological tinkering well into the creative days. It’s easier to just say that the six creative days apply mostly to the creation of the planet. I hope you understand.

      Thanks for giving this some consideration, and supporting this site!

      Cedars

  17. redsanguine says:

    Under the heading of “Creator perceived in Creation”, they quote Alfred Russel Wallace. He was contemporary to Darwin and conceived the theory of natural selection independent of Darwin. He was controversial within the scientific community for his ideas of spiritualism and the idea that the human mind, and talents such as music, could not be explained by evolution and that there must be something in the unseen universe at play.

    They quote from him to say that even this promenant scientist believes in a creator, however other scientists even at the time (1800s) publicly disagreed with him on this point.

  18. redsanguine says:

    Formed, was probably not the best choice of words. Here is the quote from the article.

    “God had already created the universe, including a lifeless planet Earth, by the time the first creative day began.”

    The distinction is in the age of the planet vs the work of making it inhabitable and creating life. I am not defending their views, I am sure you understand, as they are still unreasonable from a scientific standpoint.

    Best,

  19. redsanguine says:

    Formed, was probably not the best choice of words. Here is the quote from the article.

    “God had already created the universe, including a lifeless planet Earth, by the time the first creative day began.”

    The distinction is in the age of the planet vs the work of making it inhabitable and creating life. I am not defending their views, I am sure you understand, as they are still unreasonable from a scientific standpoint.

    Best,

    • Cedars says:

      Hi, yes I know you’re not defending them. But look at it this way… the earth is 4.5 billion years old. What reason would God have to create the earth’s geological structure and then wait around for 4.5 billion years before sorting out the oceans and all living things in just a few thousand years? And what about prehistoric marine and land creatures? The earliest fossil, a single-celled microbe, dates to 3.5 billion years ago (you could argue, the start of the sixth day)!

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/35-billionyearold-horribly-smelly-fossil-found-in-australia-is-oldest-ever-complete-example-of-life-on-earth-8940031.html

      As I’m sure you’ll agree, it’s hard arguing this because it really isn’t my/our problem. I don’t believe in the Genesis record. The fact that it was concocted by primitive ancient minds is obvious to me. But hopefully you can see why I have stretched the six creative days to the total age of the earth for the sake of argument.

      Cedars

  20. Alec Holmes says:

    The Watchtower loves to quote Michael Behe, who is an advocate of the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design. ID is not a scientific theory, but an attempt to rebrand creationism in a “scientific” cloak. It has produced no positive evidence for its claims.
    Stephen Myers is not a scientist.

  21. smmcroberts says:

    theVoice,
    I write computer programs for a living too. It always proves too simplistic to compare computers to human brains, or computer programs to anything biological.

    Yes, programs are difficult to get right. But “right” in this case means trying to achieve a certain specific outcome. Evolution is not like that; it never had a specific outcome in mind: it was not trying to bring about humans. It was simply mindlessly “selecting” the most fit for survival. Whatever outcome was produced was “acceptable,” and the best simply survived. Now we, as humans, look back and say: “Oh, how could mindless evolution have been so smart as to combine all just the right ‘ingredients’ to produce us?” That sentence, tempting as it is, is the sort of deluded thinking that misleads one into doubting the evidence in front of our eyes.

    You say there are respected scientists who don’t believe in evolution. Respected by whom? Sorry, but they’re not respected by me (as scientists.) When they don’t follow where the evidence leads they are not practicing science.

  22. HMC 2011 says:

    ET has no evidence. They’re just stories. What once was blowing breeze and the sun was shining and lifeless planet was formed regolith people …..

  23. Excelsior, formerly known as George says:

    Smmcroberrts,

    I couldn’t have put it better myself!

    The first mistake creationists make is to misunderstand evolution.

    There wasn’t a great plan to make people through billions of years of evolution. We are an accident of environment and mutation, and we are pretty amazing for all that!

    I’m sorry, folks, but intelligent design sounds great but it’s as mad as a bag of cats. These Respected Scientists have not presented any evidence for their claims.

    If ID were true, then we would have a very strange God indeed!
    GOD : “Dinosaurs? Well, they’re kind of cool but I’m bored with them now” and, BOOM, an asteroid clears the canvas for another go. It’s just very silly indeed. Why create those magnificent animals just to see them all become extinct? Was it a practice go? Did he just get bored and decide to hot things up? Once you begin thinking about it it all becomes very silly.

    Remember also, this fact that God made us gives him the right, as the Creator, to kill billions of people and countless other types of life at Armageddon!

    If you want to believe in Creation then I defend your right to do so. However, there is no scientific backing for the creation account. It just isn’t there, and no amount of wordplay and squeezing science out of poetry will change that.

    Peace be with you

    Excelsior!

  24. JBob says:

    Unfortunately, geology proves this tinkering with the formation of the earth in 7,000 x 4 days to be a myth, as well. Consider that volcanic activity in the USA is dated back to 2.3 million years and at minimum 630,000 years. Granted some geologic forces can act within a few minutes–earthquakes, subsidence, but plate tectonics and Ice Age proofs were right across the East River in the form of skyscraper clutters embedded in bedrock left in place by glaciers.

    Also, essential to understand how the Hebrews understood the Genesis narration–literal, or interpretative? If literal, then we have to conclude there are TWO creation tales, chapter one, then another in chapter two. [NIV, Genesis 1] “26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.” 6th day–we’re done, rest time!

    Chapter 2–the order is reversed… (come on atheists/agnostics…)
    [NIV] “Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” And, the rib story follows… Chapter 1–non-divisive, androgynous, asexual creation story; Chapter 2–divided, no step by step creation, and female is divided from and subordinated to the male.

    And, so this nags at — if Moses authored the To-rah, as Watchtower (and others) claim, why would he write two versions of the same story? Or, is it two or more competing movements over a period of time contributing to the stories? Why is it we have the Patriarchs and Matriarchs who while devoted to *Tetragrammaton* carry along their talismans and other deities? This worship on the “high places” extended up to King Josiah, even outlasting the infamous Elijah firefall to eliminate the stumblers on their uneven legs.

    So, if this stuff is literal, it has logical gaps Noah’s Ark could fit, but if allegorical, it fits with most myths in providing a moral lesson to guide as a life-lesson.

  25. Cedars, thank you for your postings. I am not a Jdubber I am only connected through family and friends, I take a deep breath when I say friends. My wife a Jdubber “sez” I spend to much time on these sights. She hears me yelling and laughing. I point out latest pedophile arrest, Ponzi scheme , real estate fraud , killings by JWs on and on. Would you please post some thing on one of these web postings where I can send a donation. Thank you..

  26. Caribbean Man says:

    “This would imply that ultimately the mind-bogglingly complex human actually evolved from bacteria.”

    This is pure propaganda designed to appeal to the personal incredulity of the scientifically ignorant. Look how easy it is to use the same propaganda to disparage the remarkable fact of human development from a single fertilized egg to a full fledged adult:

    “This would imply that ultimately the mind-bogglingly complex human adult actually developed from a single microscopic cell.”

    They are masters at propaganda and sophistry.

  27. HMC 2011 says:

    smmcroberts

    It was simply mindlessly “selecting” the most fit for survival. Whatever outcome was produced was “acceptable,” and the best simply survived. Now we, as humans, look back and say: “Oh, how could mindless evolution have been so smart as to combine all just the right ‘ingredients’ to produce us?”

    Yes! Evolutionists have made a gift of life from God, a pile of dung!

    When they don’t follow where the evidence leads they are not practicing science.

    Scientific evidence? How does one become life from inanimate matter? What is your scientific evidence? How does one become multicellular from unicellular? Where is your scientific evidence? How did insects? How did photosynthesis? Why did all the fruit? How did apes become people? In fact, ET has no evidence. This is just a vivid imagination.

    I agree with the author that JWs is a totalitarian organization, but should focus more on the differences in their doctrines than enough to take a positive opinion on the evolutionary tale.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      HMC 2011. Please read and study a little about evolution before making any further comments. Your determination to display your ignorance is embarrassing.

  28. Alec Holmes says:

    Perhaps reading the opposing view of what it is you reject would help you understand it? And then you’ll be able to think of how best to respond to it.

  29. zeebo says:

    I like the logic here ‘small variations within a kind to the point where the original is vastly different from the resulting organism’, Well i couldn’t have summarised evolution any better myself! Other than to add that once these variations cause the progeny to not be able to bread with the ancestor, you have a new species! Add in population bottlenecks and expression of the recessive genotype in the phenotype and you got it nearly text book!!

    Oh and one final curve ball.. Who came up with he mechanics of these small variations? not Darwin… It was Gregor Mendel a roman catholic monk and a personal hero of mine. This was before the idea started to circulate that science and religion are mutually exclusive.. Previously most leading scientists were clergymen and the church was actually pushing for truth in science (and Islam previously)

    Cheers for a good laugh!

  30. HMC 2011 says:

    Rowland Nelken

    Please read and study a little about evolution before making any further comments. Your determination to display your ignorance is embarrassing.

    Sure, everyone who does not believe in evolutionary tale is accused of ignorance. Anyone who disagrees with evolutionary ideology, is accused of a lack of understanding “depth of evolutionary learning.” It is almost similar approach as Jehovah’s Witnesses against the opposition.

  31. HMC 2011 says:

    Alec Holmes

    By all means, make your case and show us why evolution is wrong.

    For example, that life does not come from non-living. Life does not arise from non-living chemicals, therefore evolution could not start. I can not build the third floor of his house when I do not even built the second floor. Evolutionists have no foundation. Life arises only from life. At the beginning had to be life.

    Good luck, evolution has been proven as incontrovertible fact.

    When something is described as “absolute truth”, I have to be suspicious. The story of how the content of lifeless planet for billions of years of change on people, because the wind was blowing, the sun was shining, falling meteorites, exploding volcanoes ……..

      I do not believe it!

    The stones poured water will never change on people.

  32. Hakizimana Jean de Dieu says:

    @theVoice, … in that case, things become even more difficult… If you feel creatures are so complex that there is a designer, their creator must be more complex and then, who CREATED THAT CREATOR (God)? Who designed that creator?

  33. HMC 2011 says:

    Hakizimana Jean de Dieu

    who CREATED THAT CREATOR (God)?

    God was not created. God is eternal. Just like there is something eternal in the atheistic theory of the Big Bang. Atheists and evolutionists have the same problems with the start of …

  34. Zeebo says:

    Science tells us how, religion why… Different answers to different questions.. God created and used tools like evolution there isn’t really a conflict. Problems come when you mix the question / answers.

    Peace

  35. HMC 2011 says:

    Zeebo

    God created and used tools like evolution there isn’t really a conflict.

    I do not agree! Evolution does not belong to Christianity. Evolution needs to course death, ruin, bloodshed. So God did not create.

  36. zeebo says:

    Hi, Yeah it doesn’t belong to Christianity because it isn’t a doctrine or belief its just a method.

    And in terms of death and bloodshed the bible clearly shows the ‘Jehovah of armies’ permitting this kind of thing. I was Reading 2 Samuel 12:11 where God tells David that hes going to give his wife to his neighbors in broad daylight, then kill his son (which he does).. That sounds a bit meaner than this wonderful and amazing process he created of evolution!

    I think that things like evolution and the complexity of DNA actually point to a creator not retract from there being one.

    And i am a trinitarian orthodox christian.. but like i said i don’t think religion should be threatened by science. The old testament was written for nomadic desert people thousands of years ago, if God started telling them directly about the role of mRNA and ribosomes and such like, they wouldn’t have got it. so he gave it to them in a way they could swallow.

    Finally I like the fact that we can talk here and have different opinions. I’m not forcing my world view on you and i respect your argument. This is why not being in the WT is so great.

    Catholic – Unity in diversity – I like that

  37. John says:

    He was referring to evolution, not abiogenesis. He asked for proof as to why evolution is wrong, but you started talking about something else.

    Evolution is change over time. Abiogenesis is creation from nothing. What is your case for evolution being wrong?

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Certainly it was once the priesthood who sought answers to the questions of the origin of the universe and of earthly life. Now we look to science for those answers as the religious route was found wanting. Yes, early Islam inpired some great scientific innovations, and Isaac Newton was as crazed a Bible nut as Judge Rutherford with all his prophetic sums drawn from Biblical numerology. But now we have reached a parting of the ways. Scientific method, based on evidence and the testing of hypotheses, has never come up with a religious truth or dogma, and Abrahamic religion, based on sacred texts received through, or at least inspired by, a visionary experience, has never produced a scientific formula.

  38. Dynamo says:

    @theVoice

    I’m afraid your understanding of evolution still betrays what it actually is. Perhaps the program analogy is a poor one, and biologists should cease using it, being biologists rather than computer scientists :-P

    I’ve always thought that the following is the most concise way to explain evolution:

    Random mutations filtered by natural selection.

    Mutations occur all the time. The larger a given population, the more variety that exists within it, the higher the likelihood that at least a few individuals will survive should the environment suddenly or drastically change. Those surviving individuals who would possess the traits necessary for survival would pass it on to their offspring. Their progeny would repopulate, and as the population grew again, the frequency of new mutations popping up would increase, etc, etc. That is what is meant by adaptation.

    Evolution doesn’t mean improvement, it means adaptation, roughly by the mechanism I just described.

    Michael Behe is hardly the only scientist who seeks to reconcile his religious beliefs with his scientific knowledge by advocating the pseudoscience Intelligent Design. His “irreducible complexity” hypothesis has already been demonstrated experimentally to be false.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Sci…312…97B

    http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/188646?uid=3739576&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103269836813

    Also it’s no secret that there is demand for the type of literature that Micheal Behe writes. He was even interviewed by the WTBS, and his book was promoted by the Awake! magazine.

    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102006324?q=Michael+Behe&p=par

    The debate in the scientific community is over. The scientific community just needs to do a better job of translating it into layman’s terms. That doesn’t mean there is no creator, it just means that there is no evidence presented so far to show that it exists, or that it played any role in the diversity of life.

  39. Kyle Racki says:

    “The same cannot be said of young, impressionable minds that can be only too easily stultified and hindered by the preachments of a cult that has nothing more than self-perpetuation as its sole preoccupation.”

    What a great closing statement, well said Cedars.

    Anyone leaving or fading from the JW’s should pick up a book of “The Greatest Show on Earth” by Richard Dawkins which outlines the evidence for evolution. It completely changed my flawed understanding that I was brought up with in the JW cult.

    I recommend anyone in this comment thread who doubts evolution or doesn’t feel they have a thorough grasp of it to check out this video on Youtube that breaks it down very simply: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdddbYILel0

  40. HMC 2011 says:

    Alec Holmes

    Religion is based on fantasy, science is based on facts.

    ET has no “facts”. Only interpretation.

  41. HMC 2011 says:

    John

    He was referring to evolution, not abiogenesis. He asked for proof as to why evolution is wrong, but you started talking about something else

    This was an example. If not agiogenese can not be evolution.

    Evolution is change over time..

    You’ve been here for millions of years? Have you observed any direct evolution? Or just believe in millions of years??

    What is your case for evolution being wrong?

    Nowhere is happening and no evolution never happened.

  42. HMC 2011 says:

    Kyle Racki

    It completely changed my flawed understanding that I was brought up with in the JW cult.

    Congratulations to leave the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but the theory of evolution is also a cult. The atheistic, materialistic cult. Learning how dead came alive, the blind began to see, the deaf hear, and also began that life is just a kind of spurious coincidence …..

  43. Os do Corpo dos Governantes estão mais perdidos que cego em tiroteio! Onde está a verdade sobre as origens da nossa Terra e do inteiro universo? Na Bíblia e nas ciências, ora! Mas como fazer uma conciliação das duas verdades? Os Deuses têm disponibilizado por um de seus muitos canais a resposta favorável e maravilhosa! Confiram o que a revista A Continela tem a dizer sobre essa maravilhosa pespectiva que é a conciliação do saber bíblico com o saber científico – livre de dogmas de líderes religionistas maus, claro.:

    http://issuu.com/apostolo_tds/docs/ct16p_outdez13

    Apóstolo Testemunha dos Deuses Santos desde o Brasil

  44. JBob says:

    A few websites pop into mind for donation purposes:

    [URLs removed]

    Both websites are non-evangelical nor do they promote any denomination. The purpose of #1 is highlighting abuse, rape and molestation cases (especially children) while the latter is a general website exposing the Watchtower [horrified screams off camera] and outlining personal journeys and recovery from being JW and surprisingly JW volunteers at HQ. If you think its wacky in the local congregation, read some of the personal statements from former HQ staffers and overseers..[shudders].

    • Cedars says:

      JBob – I would rather field questions on donations if you don’t mind. The question about donations has been responded to privately.

      Anyone who would like to make donations to JWsurvey can find a PayPal form on our “Get Involved” page. Other websites, such as Freeminds and JWstruggle, also accept donations.

      The child molestation website you mentioned has no affiliation with JWsurvey following communication between myself and the owner, and I would rather keep it that way if you don’t mind.

  45. JBob says:

    The Big Bang as it is popularly called now has a model of a universe having a collapse that led to the Big Bang, and in a distant future, another collapse that will cause another ” big bang”. A continuing cycle. As some popular fictional pieces describe it, even if we reach out to find the “Prime Mover” of this cycle, we may find that we’re merely living on what amounts to be sub-atomic particles to a meta-universe given that we have continuous models stacked like nesting dolls of particles revolving about a center of gravity.

  46. Excelsior, formerly known as George says:

    A great discussion, folks.

    I would just like to add this. There’s been a linking of evolution with a lack of morality. There is no reason why believing in evolution should lead to a lack of morals.

    After all, people argue over how we got here, but-we’re here. The fact is that, however life came to be on earth, it exists. We live in a beautiful and complex Eco system that has evolved (yes, I believe that evolution is the best description we have of how life came to be) and we have the intelligence to begin to understand it. Science has provided many boons. How those boons have been used is down to the people who use them.

    If the WTBTS is so confident that their whacky and unscientific explanation for life is correct, then let them have a debate on their web site, and allow people to look up the references in their publications, with a scientist who will be able to explain the current understanding, and explain how the theory itself has evolved over time. That would be helpful for everybody.

    Peace be with you

    Excelsior!

  47. Hakizimana Jean de Dieu says:

    HMC 2011, I can see you got my point! If you believe God was not created with no facts at all, how can you fail to to believe in evolution with some facts? You must have read about “the old puzzle of ‘the chicken or the egg’” from the book “CREATION” published by the Watchtower. In the book, they ask a question like chicken or the egg, which came first!
    If you believe God was not created but created all things including heavens, by analogy, if you were asked “God or Heaven, which came first?”, what would be you answer?

    (1 Corinthians 1:21) “. . .God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing.” I am afraid JWs are trying to mix “foolishness” and science and the mixture is obviously heterogeneous!!

    This intends to rend eternal their tales like the one according to which demons had children with humans (Genesis 6:2,4)!

  48. zeebo says:

    Is the idea of a God and creator strange? Yes. But is string theory, quantum mechanics, and the fact that matter and energy changes its behavior when observed strange.. Very!

    When you get into this really amazing Science you see that believing is a God really isn’t that that wacky. Unfortunately for the pub theologians/professors out there using ‘science’ as the anti-God doesn’t work.

  49. Apple of Oil says:

    The Awake is meant for the general public. The general public generally thinks that creationism believe in a 6,000 year old Earth. I see no problem with them correcting this widely held view of what people think Creationism is. The belief is widespread, especially among those that are not religious. As you were born in, maybe you wouldn’t have experienced that.

    The whole “thousands of years” is quite nitpicky. Maybe some days took thousands, some millions, some billions. We don’t know and there’s no indication that these days had to be of equal length. Thousands of years is a safe phrase which scales. Considering even 1000 years is pretty hard to grok for most humans the point seems clear. It would seem you missed the point of the phrase. Or misdirected it at least.

    As for evolution… Yes the Awake does avoid the term described there. However, remember that the scientific community uses the same word for both adaptation within a species (sometimes called micro evolution) and between species (macro evolution). This leads the casual layperson to assume that they’re related. Evolution is indeed a fact. Micro evolution that is. Obviously the Awake isn’t going to use the term microevolution in a 3 page article meant for the public. It would be too confusing and distract from the point of the article. Instead it merely describes what it is (adaptation within a species) and points to how the bible doesn’t contradict it.

    Really cedars, this isn’t rocket science. Pick at other things, but don’t stoop to this level of making stuff up where there is nothing.

    • Alec Holmes says:

      “Thousands” means “thousands” and “millions” means “millions.”

      They are creationists, get over it.

      Homo sapiens evolved form non-human ancestors over million of years. There was no Adam & Eve. All living things evolved from a common ancestor.

      Evolution (micro and macro) is a fact. Get over it.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Apple of Oil. There is no essential difference, as you would like to imagine, between macro and micro evolution. There is no ultimate ‘species’ (or for the Genesis inclined ‘kind’)barrier to evolution. As Sue points out, anyone swayed by the ‘arguments’ of the ‘Awake’ is exactly the sort of confused, lost and lonely individual that the JWs seek to prey on. JWs are ‘creationists’, just as they are ‘fundamentalists’, a minor Protestant sect and part of Christendom. They are also part of the world. JWdom, fortunately, is likely to encounter more and more problems as the 21st century progresses. As general levels of education increase, there should be fewer folk naive enough to fall for JW perverted non arguments. They can try and hold back the flood by frowning on education once the ability to read their drivel has been acquired, but that will be as fruitless as threatening Armageddon murder to anyone reading or contributing to apostate websites.

      Of course, humanity has much to learn about the origin of the universe, the beginnings of earthly life (abiogenesis) and the detailed mechanics of evolution, but to rely on a poetic little story, or rather redaction of two, (a Yahweh and an Elohim) stories from the ancient Middle East as an incontrovertible word on the subject leads to the wacky world of creationists which includes, alas, most Muslims, as well as Ultra Orthodox Jews and a range of Christendom’s fundies, of which JWs are simply A N Other grubby little example.

  50. Apple of Oil says:

    How did time evolve? It is simply another dimension. I recommend reading flatland. Then do some thinking about what or who would have existed before time (space time) was around.

    Whether a creator or not, we are faced with the same problem.

    • Alec Holmes says:

      Yet creationists want to subscribe to the mind-numbing thought-stopping ‘goddidit’ whereas science will keep looking at the evidence and finding answers based on reality.

  51. Sue says:

    Apple of Oil
    If the Awake is for the public, then they are doing the public an embarrassing disservice. Many people are educated and do not need to be spoon fed. The kind of “public” who are not educated are the ones JW’s try to attract, hence the reason for this kind of manipulative writing.
    Defending such a magazine and a stance is embarrassing at best. I have always found relying on one source of information as not very helpful. But of course JW’s are not allowed to educate themselves or use other materials are they?

  52. Dynamo says:

    @Apple of Oil,

    thousand years is not safe phrase that scales. It means “1000 years”. Saying it scales makes it completely inexplicit and nonsensical. The Awake! magazine is trying to distance Jehovah’s Witnesses from other creationist groups to avoid being labeled as creationists. As usual, they’ve taken a word they don’t like, and loaded it to mean something different so that it doesn’t apply to them.

    Your distinction between “microevolution” and “macroevolution” is troubling, as you either fail to see they are related, or are intentionally avoiding it to justify your preconceived notions (which is intellectually dishonest, if you don’t mind my saying so).

    If we understand “microevolution” to be a small change, and “macroevolution” to mean a large change, what is stopping a series of “microevolutions” to add up to a “macroevolution”?

    Furthermore, how much of a change is considered “microevolution” versus “macroevolution”?Considering that humans and chimpanzee’s share 98.8% of their DNA, how would you classify the 1.2% differential? “Micro” or “macro”?

    Your acknowledgement that “microevolution” is fact, and then apology for the Awake! magazine not using the term “evolution” blows my mind.

    I apologize if I’m being overly frank, but your reasoning is incredibly flawed, and needs to be addressed directly. I hope you will address the issues I’ve raised with your argument.

    Peace.

  53. rexx says:

    Evoillusion is still a theory of the greatest hoax,perpetrated by satanist like Charles Darwin who had no degree in science but was a theologists. Some facts about Darwin and Lyell that most evolutionists don’t want you to know:

    1) Neither Darwin or Lyell had “any” degrees in science.
    2) Darwin’s only degree was in theology. He was going to be a preacher before he boarded the Beagle (ship).
    3) Lyell had a degree in being a lawyer. But he wrote the book that made Darwin question God.
    4) In the day that Darwin earned his degree in theology, what they taught was Bible literalism. Which also means that Darwin was taught and believed in the literal six day creation. Which would make him a YEC before he rejected God to write his theory.
    5) Lyell was basically a Bible scoffer who hated God, and used a type of intelligent peer pressure technique to convince people to his way of thinking. Which basically told people that unless they believed the way he did, they would be deemed as ignorant and uneducated. And as you probably know this same technique is used by evolutionists even today.

    So if you ever wondered why evolution seemed so well put together to conflict with YEC. You have to remember that the person who wrote it turned against YEC because of the peer pressure Lyell wrote in his book. And if you wonder where the actual idea came from for man coming from animals. It was from part of Darwin’s teachings where he had to learn about other pagan religions while earning that theology degree. But his father had already wrote a book of his own. One Darwin used to write his first book on evolution. So the idea that man came from animals can be traced back to the time of Moses. Where Egyptian religion believed this (man came from slime from the Nile river), and their gods were half man half animal. So evolution actually has it’s roots in Pagan religion, and Darwin was not the originator of that idea. He just made it popular, and introduced it to science as a way to replace God and the Bible that he had rejected.

    Darwin and plagiarism? Darwin’s father, Erasmus Darwin wrote a book called: Zoonomia, The laws of organic life. Most all of Darwin’s book, Origin of species, was based on his father’s writings and ideas. But Darwin never gave credit to his father. Which means he took credit for his father’s writings. This has been known by the scientific world for years. It is not talked about because they do not want to tarnish the person whom takes credit from someone else for the main theory of science. Evolutionists do not even like using the word plagiarism concerning this issue. They will claim that Charles Darwin more fully developed the book his father wrote (link), even though his son takes full credit.

    Was evolution written to combat the Christian faith?

    Here is a letter from Charles Darwin to his son George:

    P.S. Oct 22d. Hen. has taken your M.S. to London, & will write.— I have lately read Morley’s Life of Voltaire & he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force & vigour of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow from slow & silent side attacks.— I have been talking on this head with Litchfield, & he strongly concurs, & insists how easily a man may for ever destroy his own influence.
    Reference: http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-9105.html……where is the monkey man is he still hanging from a tree ready to become fully human.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Rexx – Try reading the works of Darwin rather than relying on ad hominem attacks. Have you ever considered why, although written before any knowledge of genes or DNA, Darwin’s theory of evolution, has never been discounted or rejected, simply refined and improved?

      Why, anyway, do you feel threatened by information, evidence and knowledge such that you feel moved to post such angry and meaningless rants?

  54. Sue says:

    Rexx,
    Have you ever read anything besides the Awake and the JW evolution book?
    Have you got a degree in botany, science or even genetics?

  55. rexx says:

    Now cedars are you becoming paranoid like the watchtower with their ever changing doctrines too,espousing satanist evolution.

  56. rexx says:

    and why do you ignore the evidence I posted above junior. are you threaten by it.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Rexx, you have posted no evidence. Darwin was working in an era when science was for amateurs. Darwin had, anyway, studied medicine as well as attending many other lectures on natural history.

      Please tell us what you have read about evolution. Please also give us the evidence for the existence of Satan and then Satan’s influence in forming and disseminating his evolutionary doctrine.

      I do not know whether you are simply a windup or whether you are terrified by information and thus in need of some psychological help. As yet, however, you have only presented yourself as an angry ignoramus.

  57. rexx says:

    sue are you another nut I don’t care what the so called watchtower does. but I know the information I posted above is ignore by evonuts.

    • Cedars says:

      Rexx is banned for insulting behavior as per our posting guidelines.

      Am I the only one, or is a pattern emerging between creationists and insulting behavior / ad hominem attacks?

      • Alec Holmes says:

        I agree. If only they would discuss arguments/evidence than attack those making/presenting them.

      • Rowland Nelken says:

        Creationists have no information, arguments or evidence. So ad hominem attacks and insults are all that remain. Hence they can only dig themselves ever deeper into their DIY pit of ignorance.

  58. Sue says:

    Rexx,
    Not willing to answer questions?
    No debate as usual.
    Another hit and run artist.
    Macro, micro, and now satanist evolution?
    Please help yourself, get educated and then come back and debate.

  59. rexx says:

    Ok Sue explain to me how that plant came from nonliving matter, before it became what it is known today? if you don’t know ask your evolutionist friends.

  60. rexx says:

    read the letter from Darwin above sue or are you trying to ignore where all this evolutionist hoax started from? are you running from the real answers.can you debate what I posted first above? lets here it.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      I have read the letter from Darwin to his son George. Please explain why or how it indicates that evolution is a hoax. Darwin merely points out that he agrees that direct attacks on Christianity are ineffectual. What does that have to do with evolution? Please explain.

  61. rexx says:

    before you talk how evolution started,explain how did nonliving matter, started to produce the living soup evolutionist claim all life came from? Explain it in detailed.lets here it junior. If you don’t know ask your scientist for the answer

  62. Sue says:

    Rexx,
    Why do you presume I am an evolutionist or a creationist? Quite simply I am comfortable to admit that I have no idea how a plant came into existence. I do not need or want to score points be abusive or be right. I long ago stopped that kind of behaviour.
    I did ask you if you had a degree in science, genetics or botany. I guess you do not?
    My purpose (if I have one at all) on here is to be supportive of those that have been indoctrinated and are looking for non judgemental communication. By the way in England in the 19th century one of the major ways to have any social standing was to study theology. Most men did that or law. So presumably Darwin was no different.

  63. Rowland Nelken says:

    I am no scientist, rexx, but as you can read from this link, the study of abiogenesis is ongoing, with, as yet, no definitive or universally accepted conclusion. This does not mean, however, that humanity should revert to, or be content with Darwin’s ‘warm little pond somewhere’, still less rely exclusively on the first two chapters of Genesis.

    Perhaps you could explain, Rexx, why studies about evolution and abiogenesis get you so worked up. Are you a Bible fundie/creationist of some sort, JW or otherwise? Do you get enraged when told that the sun rises in the morning or that winter is generally colder than summer?

  64. rexx says:

    YET they do not explain how non living matter,produce all life on earth,they avoid it like the plague because they don’t know. It a scientist (who think themselves as gods-mortal fool that wrinkle and die like the rest of the living lower animals)comes with a wack out theory such as evolution they surely will have no trouble explaining how non living matter produce life on earth.

    • Alec Holmes says:

      Yes, we still don’t know how abiogenesis happened. But it did happen. This still doesn’t prove evolution wrong. How life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. The evidence makes the case for it.

  65. Alain B. says:

    Hi John! Another thoughtful and well documented article. Well done.
    Presently, if I got it well, you are still, “technically speaking”, a JW, but, in fact a non (or un) Christian agnostic/ deist. Don’t you feel uneasy, or uncomfortable, in such a situation?
    Wishing you all the best in 2014

  66. rexx says:

    I eat scientists,evonuts and microevolutionist with questions. I am all ears if they can explain how nonliving matter produce all life on earth. One more thing just like psalms 1: 4 said about mortal(grow old and die) beings who only have 0.0001% used of their brains :The very one sitting in the heavens will laugh.

  67. Sue says:

    rexx,
    why do you want to eat scientists,evonuts and micro evolutionist with questions that do not make sense and then add a bible quotation which adds nothing to your argument? As far as I know DNA was discovered in the 1950′s, so its probably a little early to write off the research that is still being done? I am glad that science exists because it has answered many questions and continues to find cures for many illnesses. If we relied on the unseen, all knowing super being, many more would have their lives shortened. Is it possible for you to relax in your beliefs and to accept that people may not agree with you and that is okay? If not you may have a fairly bumpy ride through life. Hope you have a good new years eve and to everyone on here especially Cedars, I wish a peaceful and happy 2014.

  68. Jeannie says:

    Believe in an All Mighty God and Creator is based on faith. Hebrews 11:6 A man cannot please God unless he has faith. Anyone who comes to God must believe that He is. That one must also know that God gives what is promised to the one who keeps on looking for Him.
    1 Corinthians 8:6 But we know there is only one God. He is the Father. All things are from Him. He made us for Himself. There is one Lord. He is Jesus Christ. He made all things. He keeps us alive.
    Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God made from nothing the heavens and the earth.
    Acts 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.
    God is the master scientist.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Faith is, at best, useless. At worst it can be dangerous. I once had faith in the murderous Jehovah of the Watchtower. Al Quaedr have faith in the God given Jihadic message of Allah.

      Why, Jeannie, have you posted this on a thread about the Awake and Creationism? It is meaningless in any context, but utterly irrelevant here.

  69. Jeannie says:

    I am not a Jehovahs Witness. I do have strong faith in God and his provision Jesus Christ. Faith is not for everyone.

  70. Hakizimana Jean de Dieu says:

    Jeannie, you really have strong faith to believe in creator who tolerates seeing his creators killed and enjoys it. Examples
    1) (Numbers 25:7-11) . . .When Phin′e·has the son of El·e·a′zar the son of Aaron the priest caught sight of it, he at once got up from the midst of the assembly and took a lance in his hand. 8 Then he went after the man of Israel into the vaulted tent and pierced both of them through, the man of Israel and the woman through her genital parts. At that the scourge was halted from upon the sons of Israel. 9 And those who died from the scourge amounted to twenty-four thousand. 10 Then Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying: 11 “Phin′e·has the son of El·e·a′zar the son of Aaron the priest has turned back my wrath from upon the sons of Israel by his tolerating no rivalry at all toward me in the midst of them, so that I have not exterminated the sons of Israel in my insistence on exclusive devotion. . .

    3) (Numbers 31:14, 15) . . .And Moses grew indignant at the appointed men of the combat forces,… said to them: “Have YOU preserved alive every female?

    3)(1 Samuel 15:32, 33) . . .Samuel said: “BRING A′gag the king of Am′a·lek near to me.” Then A′gag went to him reluctantly, and A′gag began to say to himself: “Truly the bitter experience of death has departed.” 33 However, Samuel said: “Just as your sword has bereaved women of children, in that way your mother will be most bereaved of children among women.” With that Samuel went hacking A′gag to pieces before Jehovah in Gil′gal.

    4) Look now how its/ his/ her followers imitate it/him/her from this page
    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2007482?q=We+do+not+need+to+let+our+eye+feel+sorry&p=par

    YOU HAVE A STRONG FAITH!!

  71. Eu até poderia concordar com o irmão. Mas aquilo que um dia passou por cima de minha casa não pode ser chamada de superstição e nem de alucinação. Há algo realmente grandioso em nossa volta. É dever nosso – de todos os seres humanos: dos cientistas, dos crentes e até mesmo dos não crentes – sair em busca desse “algo grandioso”. Os Deuses não podem ser meras superstições, irmão Alec Holmes.

    Apóstolo TDS

  72. Vincent Deporter says:

    You have to love this nugget, one I have spent wasted time trying to argue, to no avail — confirmation bias is too strong in believers:
    Awake!:
    FOURTH DAY
    The sun and moon become discernible from the earth’s surface. —Genesis 1:14-19.

    How is that a “creation day”? They will prance around the meaning of “make” with ridiculous spin. Fact is, the Bible counts it as a creative day, making the Sun, Moon, and stars.
    All of this of course, for us! LOL!

    One must be seriously mind-controlled to eat this crap, and refuse the hard evidence that supports Science, rather than age old ignorance.

    Great article, John!

  73. chris says:

    Look up evolution and adaptation… two completely different words

    http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-09/ten-new-or-newly-discovered-animal-evolutions-including-humans
    This shows new adaptations. See the comment below to see there are people upset and how the word evolution is used incorrectly.

    Note: the big band and evolution are only theories. NOT SCIENTIFICLY PROVEN.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
    1. Evolution has never been observed.
    2. Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
    3. There are no transitional fossils.
    4. The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
    5. Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.

    Because of the lack of journalism/investigating, I had to add.

    • Alec Holmes says:

      From the very same link you posted above:

      “The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don’t know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

      Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below. They are brief and therefore somewhat simplified; consult the references at the end for more thorough explanations.”

      Please read the article before misrepresenting information.

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Chris – do you get upset about the theory of gravity to the extent that you refuse to learn about it and dismiss it as unproven? Why do you enjoy displaying your ignorance?

  74. Reader says:

    Chris:

    1). Speciation has been observed in grasses, among other things.

    2). Evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. The earth is not a closed system and gains input from various sources, including the sun obviously.

    3). There are many, many transitional fossils, notably archaeopteryx. However, if you actually do some research you will find that everything is a transitional form.

    4). Evolution does not deal with the origins of life. Random chance does have a part in evolution. It is natural selection, however, that is in the driver’s seat. That process selects the organism best suited for its environment. It is not random.

    5). “Theory” is the highest level of support for a scientific thesis. It is not, as in the vernacular, a guess. It means that, to date, it has been confirmed by every scientific endeavour related to that field. Period.

  75. tlstatton says:

    I question man being only on earth 6000 years when I see archaeological proof that man is much older than 6000 years.

  76. rexx says:

    YET they do not explain how non living matter,produce all life on earth,they avoid it like the plague because they don’t know. It a scientist (who think themselves as gods-mortal fool that wrinkle and die like the rest of the living lower animals)comes with a wack out theory such as evolution they surely will have no trouble explaining how non living matter produce life on earth. Now rolland explain it in detail since you have a bigger brain.

  77. Reader says:

    rexx, raising an issue about an unrelated topic, abiogenesis, does not negate the mountains of evidence that supports evolution.

    It’s akin to denying the existence of your car because you cannot know for sure what mine the iron ore that makes the metal for your car came from. The existence of your car stands on its own evidentiary merit.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Rexx – I cannot explain abiogenesis. I do know, however, that intensive research is ongoing, and has been for over a century. It is not ‘avoided like the plague.’ Perhaps you, Rexx, could explain why you imagine that the first two chapters of Genesis are the last and incontrovertible word on the creation of the universe and the beginning of life on earth. What is it about this text, that makes you convinced it is infallible?

      The only people, it seems who refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence about evolution are Bibliolaters and Koranolaters. I presume you are one of those. Am I right.

      Your questions, Rexx, have been answered in full. Please answer mine. 1. Are you a bibliolater or koranolater? 2. If so, why do you imagine the first two chapters of Genesis are the last word on the subjects they deal with?

      (I merely mention Genesis because the Koran merely recycles the same story). Answers please!

  78. Hakizimana Jean de Dieu says:

    rexx, you are right, you must have a smaller brain! Explain it in details how god created Adam from dust and tell him later “For dust you are and to dust you will return.”

    Earlier, Jehovah god had said to the serpent:“Upon your belly you will go and dust is what you will eat all the days of your life.” (Genesis 3:14)!

    Right, “upon their belly they go” but, do serpents feed on dust? Explain us that if you really have a smaller brain!! Big or small, brain is brain!!

  79. Rowland Nelken says:

    Rexx. We are waiting for your answers. All your questions have been answered. Thus far you have presented yourself as an angry and arrogant ignoramus who is determined to remain ignorant. Some answers might change that impression. So, here they are again:

    1. Why do you reject the overwhelming evidence that demonstrates that the variety of earthly life is the product of evolution?

    2. Do you imagine that the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis are the last word on the subject and reject, unconditionally, any evidence that calls the Genesis account into question?

    3. If the first two chapters of Genesis are the reason for your rejection of evolution, can you explain why you believe these chapters to be infallible?

    Answers please.

  80. Hakizimana Jean de Dieu says:

    Rexx may be too busy looking for a serpent that feeds on dust or the questions are more difficult than those Jehovah asked Job:
    (Job 38:3) . . .Gird up your loins, please, like an able-bodied man, And let me question you, and you inform me. . .
    (Job 38:18) . . .Have you intelligently considered the broad spaces of the earth? Tell, if you have come to know it all.
    (Job 38:24) . . .Where, now, is the way by which the light distributes itself, [And] the east wind scatters about upon the earth?
    (Job 39:1, 2) . . .“Have you come to know the appointed time for the mountain goats of the crag to give birth? Do you observe just when the hinds bring forth with birth pangs?  2 Do you count the lunar months that they fulfill, Or have you come to know the appointed time that they give birth?

    Jehovah humiliated Job with those questions and a number of other stupid questions we can now answer thanks to science!!

    • rexx says:

      Ok dodo Hakmima I am asking you or your scientist ,to explain how non living matter,produce all life on earth,they avoid it like the plague because they don’t know. If a scientist (who think themselves as gods-mortal fools that wrinkle and die like the rest of the living lower animals)comes with a whack out theory such as evolution they surely will have no trouble explaining how non living matter produce life on earth. Now Hakamima explain it in detail since you have a bigger brain from your supposly monkey ancestor. as to explain it in detailed how God created Adam you can get the answer from bible. .Fukushima said:Explain it in details how god created Adam from dust and tell him later “For dust you are and to dust you will return.”tell Adam that is hilarious, You know how retarded you sound with your dumb question? it show your limited capacity,as a mortal. Now man wants to be a short live god trying to explain the theory of evolution but cannot .

      • Rowland Nelken says:

        Rexx- perhaps you could explain why you are so keen to display your anger and ignorance. Scientists do not avoid at all research into abiogenesis, the generation of the organic from the inorganic. No definitive and universally accepted theory has yet been proposed. The following link, however, will summarise some of the research and theories.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

        Scientists of any worth do not parade themselves as gods. In principle they are open to new evidence which may overturn existing concepts. It is Bible and Koran fundies who bury their heads in the sand as they refuse to accept any facts, information or evidence which calls into question anything that is written in those old books which they proclaim, with zero evidence, are inspired by (the Bible) or dictated by (the Koran) the God of Abraham.

        Rexx – please explain why you refuse to acknowledge that there is ongoing research into the origin of life and why you refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that evolution via natural selection is the process that has produced the variety of earthly life.

        We have read your anger. We know you are committed, it seems, to maintaining your appalling ignorance.

        Please be gracious enough to explain your motives.

  81. Hakizimana Jean de Dieu says:

    rexx,
    Who created monkeys? The same god you are fighting for? Are you mocking monkeys or their creator? When the deluge of waters occurred on the earth, monkeys survived as they could find their way into Noah’s ark?

    If you had been there, I am sure you would have been killed (Not Noah’s family member) leaving behind 2 monkeys in the ark!! How are you mocking monkeys?

    Well, your god has a covenant with monkeys “(Genesis 9:14-16) . . .And it shall occur that when I bring a cloud over the earth, then the rainbow will certainly appear in the cloud. 15 And I shall certainly remember my covenant which is between me and YOU and every living soul among all flesh; and no more will the waters become a deluge to bring all flesh to ruin. 16 And the rainbow must occur in the cloud, and I shall certainly see it to remember the covenant to time indefinite between God and every living soul among all flesh that is upon the earth.”
    Unfortunately, monkeys are not aware of that good news of the kingdom of the rainbow covenant between your god and them, go and tell them the explanation of the rainbow as for me, I will keep its scientific smart explanation!!

  82. Hakizimana Jean de Dieu says:

    rexx, you ask me to explain how non living matter produce life on earth. I am surprised you are silly, how are you asking me what you know?
    (Genesis 2:7) 7 And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, . . .

    Satisfied! If not, go back and read (Genesis 1:26, 27) . . .“Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. . . (Genesis 2:21, 22) . . .Jehovah God had a deep sleep fall upon the man and, while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and then closed up the flesh over its place. 22 And Jehovah God proceeded to build the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman and to bring her to the man. . .

    Long story, “leave it in Jehovah’s hand”!!!

  83. rexx says:

    Am atheist using the the bible,I thought you gave up believing in God?

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      What do you mean Rexx? Your post makes no sense whatever. Is ‘Am’ a typo for ‘An’? Why should not an atheist study religious texts? They are a guide to human thought and behaviour down the ages. A reader of Greek myths is not bound to have a belief in the reality of Zeus and co.

      Maybe you are simply addicted to displaying your ignorance.

  84. rexx says:

    So is the endless reading of useless books written by man,trying to enlighten themselves with much to do about nothing. except the inspired word of God that has withstood the test of time. Tell me sunny, if you don’t believed in God,what do you call a anomaly in a house that is haunted? will you challenge such anomally,out of curiosity?

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Explain yourself, Rexx! What is an ‘anomaly’ in a haunted house?

      Please substantiate your claim, with evidence, that the Bible is something more than a man made book.

      Granted, the Bible has remained in wide circulation for millennia, but there is no consensus on its meaning; hence the masses of sects claiming to live by whatever its message might be.

      The Bible has not ‘stood the test of time’. Its chronology, history, cosmology, biology and prophecy have all been confounded by discoveries and events.

      Further, human morality has moved on from that of the Bible. Women’s equality is now accepted all but universally and slavery is globally outlawed. War is considered, at best, an occasional grubby and regrettable least of evils. In much of the Bible violence is glorified.

      I do not expect and answer from you Rexx. If nothing else you are consistent in your failure to answer any questions put to you.

      You are doing the cause of secularism, however, a great service. You are an example of the poverty of vision, and indeed knowledge, required to continue as a bibliolater in the 21st century.

  85. rexx says:

    You are talking about the same rhetoric by many charlatans that want a place in the anal pages of human history.Further. — human morality has moved on from that of the Bible—(ME) really explain the fail marriages by those who embrace a form of false Independence but are nothing but slaves to their own selfish desires? explain the lies and fail promises by those in power? —-Granted, the Bible has remained in wide circulation for millennia, but there is no consensus on its meaning; hence the masses of sects claiming to live by whatever its message might be. —– (ME).Nice empty philosophical words without any meaning(Granted, the Bible has remained in wide circulation for millennia, but there is no consensus on its meaning)—-masses of sects claiming to live by whatever its message might be—–(ME)Sects do not use the bible as guiding force of superior moral standard in their lives just like atheist or agnostic who are guided by their own selfish unethical moral code. Your words are without any meaning empty just like an eggshell.—-Explain yourself, Rexx! What is an ‘anomaly’ in a haunted house? Well child, the normal dumb down people called it the supernatural ,spirits and sure the devious evolutionist will not bother to investigate .— You are doing the cause of secularism a great service—- (me) So far it has done great wonders for the rest of humanity(haaaaaahaaaaa) . Why would a true follower of Jesus Christ involved itself into the corrupted politics of the (demons)mouth? ——The Bible has not ‘stood the test of time’. Its chronology, history, cosmology, biology and prophecy have all been confounded by discoveries and event— (Me)what prophecy has been confounded by discoveries?

  86. rexx says:

    Rexx – please explain why you refuse to acknowledge that there is ongoing research into the origin of life and why you refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that evolution via natural selection is the process that has produced the variety of earthly life.— Because it does not exist and will never be real but only a theory a silly guess. It is widely recognized that major scientific problems exist with all naturalistic origin of life scenarios. This is made clear in the conclusions of many leading origin-of-life researchers. A qute not mine,” A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means. I will keep on laughing to this fiction theory, which of a course a profitable cause for those in the field(more grants and funding any one). biogenesis is the theory that life can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under proper conditions. You Hear that sunny, non-life molecules(I wish some one could explain that). Remember The most famous origin of life experiment was completed in 1953 by Stanley Miller at the University of Chicago.(create life in atest tube) What was their finding and conclusion:Urey and Miller assumed that the results were significant because some of the organic compounds produced were the building blocks of proteins, the basic structure of all life (Horgan, 1996, p. 130). Although widely heralded by the press as “proving” the origin of life could have occurred on the early earth under natural conditions without intelligence, the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion. For example, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules always were produced by the Urey/Miller procedure. In real life, nearly all amino acids found in proteins are left handed, almost all polymers of carbohydrates are right handed, and the opposite type can be toxic to the cell. In a summary the famous Urey/Miller origin-of-life experiment, Horgan concluded: .In fact, almost 40 years after his original experiment, Miller told me that solving the riddle of the origin of life had turned out to be more difficult than he or anyone else had envisioned (1996, p. 138). Urey/Miller experiments did not produce evidence for abiogenesis because, although amino acids are the building blocks of life, the key to life is information (Pigliucci, 1999; Dembski, 1998). And since other scientist doubted their finding,research has since drawn Miller’s hypothetical atmosphere into question, causing many scientists to doubt the relevance of his findings. Recently, scientists have focused on an even more exotic amino acid source: meteorites. Chyba is one of several researchers who have evidence that extraterrestrial amino acids may have hitched a ride to Earth on far flung space rocks (Simpson, 1999, p. 26). Have they discover how life originated? No.Yet another difficulty is, even if the source of the amino acids and the many other compounds needed for life could be explained, it still must be explained as to how these many diverse elements became aggregated in the same area and then properly assembled themselves. This problem is a major stumbling block to any theory of abiogenesis: no one has ever satisfactorily explained how the widely distributed ingredients linked up into proteins. Presumed conditions of primordial Earth would have driven the amino acids toward lonely isolation. That’s one of the strongest reasons that Wächtershäuser, Morowitz, and other hydrothermal vent theorists want to move the kitchen [that cooked life] to the ocean floor. If the process starts down deep at discrete vents, they say, it can build amino acids—and link them up—right there (Simpson, 1999, p. 26). I say the one sitting above the circle of the earth is laughing at the poor fools who are trying so hard to find how life originated from lifeless matter.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      I hope, Rexx, you will study the subjects on which you make comments before displaying your embarrassing ignorance. Evolution is not ‘a silly guess’. Only someone who has never bothered to study the subject would come out with such an idiotic statement.

      The Bible is a fallible man made book. Neither you nor anyone else has produced evidence to even suggest its divine inspiration. Much of the morality in the Bible is appalling. Capital punishment for Sabbth breaking; stoning to death for adultery and glorification of genocide are just some of the horrors it contains.

      You have made your points Rexx. No one can be in any doubt that you are anything other than a self righteous and angry ignoramus. Education may well help to release you from the mental prison in which you are currently confined.

      Best wishes.

  87. rexx says:

    sayonara,adieu,rest in piece. Rowland Nelken.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Thank you Rexx – I never doubted your ability to cut and paste. Thank you for demonstrating, once again, the points I have made. You appear to be tragically locked into remaining a Bibliolater. Your rambling, inchoate prose simply demonstrates your utter confusion and lamentable inarticulacy and ignorance. Bibliolatry also seem to make you angry, Here’s to your recovery!

  88. Wow., Cedars your web has brought out a lot of intellectuals, who have spent a long time in a dark room thinking of words very few JW’s understand when you think most have a 80 IQ or less , if they just stumble on this sight and read the stories , I know they won’t understand a word the bloggers are talking about. It’s like ” who can us big words’ or like government speak. Let’s get back to making it simple , a few paragraphs would be good, rambling on and on is boring

  89. Reader says:

    Rexx,

    You still have a very basic misunderstanding of evolution, the science behind it, and how it works. If you do not educate yourself you will continue to appear foolish to those who understand it. Your ignorance is your own fault.

    As much as you continue to tie them together, origin of life and evolution are very different. There is no keen understanding on the origin of life. Maybe it didn’t even happen here. Evolution, on the other hand, has overwhelming scientific support. There is no debate about its existence among the scientific community, only debate about the mechanism.

    Your defence is akin to claiming that gravity (also a theory, by the way) is wrong because scientists have not yet proven the existence of the graviton.

  90. Excelsior, formerly known as George says:

    Selfish, unethical code? I am an atheist and I do not follow a selfish, unethical code!

    Rexx, I have to say that you obviously haven’t met many atheists. Have you, I fact, even met an atheist ever? Which atheist are you thinking of to cause you to slander the morality of people who do not believe in God?

    Your knowledge of evolution is flawed. Your argument is flawed. Your spelling and grammar are abysmal.

    I am a moral and unselfish person. I have educated myself to the extent that I am a qualified teacher, and I am helping my fellow man by educating children.

    I take the time to comment on this site, because I am horrified at the abuse of children in the WTBTS.

    There is a wealth of information on evolution, and many other scientific subjects, on the internet. Do some research, not to back your theories, but to challenge them. That is the scientific method. It will help you to understand the subjects that you have singularly failed to understand.

    Peace be with you

    Excelsior!

  91. Art says:

    I was at the Dembski/Hitchens debate at Prestenwood. It was a great debate.

  92. Excelsior, formerly known as George says:

    Alice Roberts, a medical doctor and a scientist, commented on the Daily Politics on BBC1 that Creationist schools exist in the UK, and they are damaging science education.

    There is an article in the New Statesman by a gentlemen who was educated at a Christian college and was taught Creationism as a scientific fact.

    Looks like this issue is going to continue to be debated as it should be. Creationism is not scientific. It is a belief.

    Peace be with you

    Excelsior!

  93. Willows says:

    There is a saying…” don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.”

    In other words hold onto what is valuable and throw out the dirty water.

    The principles of the Bible are good for mankind, and people do find peace of mind in following them. The Watchtower Society have their problems , they need to understand calling people names is primary school conduct.
    Perhaps in time they will mature to Christs teaching of…
    “you heard it said to hate your enemies, I say to you to love your enemies…..” When people overcome hate peace of mind follows.

    I don’t believe evolution has the answers.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      There are bits of wisdom knocking about in the Bible, just as there are in many books. It is the myth of divine inspiration which lends the Bible a dangerous authority. The filthy bathwater of much of the Torah, or even Jesus’ Hellfire threats and JW Armageddon cruel nonsense are just bits of Bible filth which should remain purely as subjects for academic study. Literature and the history of ideas are enriched by Bible study. Much Biblical moral guidance, along with Biblical political history and cosmology, however, is best flushed down the plughole.

      What questions, by the way, does evolution not answer? It is purely the facts regarding the origin of the diversity of life on earth. Evolution does not make any greater claims.

  94. Willows says:

    Evolution is not a fact, it is a hypothesis.
    Something assumed for the purpose of argument, a theory assumed to account for what is not understood.

    To manufacture a car, ideas are put to the test, held or discarded as not workable.
    The car today has come a long way from the T model Ford. Some might say it evolved in the mind of the designer. However evolution did not manufacture the car, it took an intelligent mind to design the manufacturing plant to produce the car. Evolution is an idea, it made nothing.

    • Cedars says:

      Oh dear Willows, allow me to do a facepalm!

      Evolution is very much a fact. It is observable in the world around us, as I alluded to in my article. Microbiologists see evolution happening on a daily basis due to the fact that microbes reproduce far more quickly.

      In one video, which I’ve embedded on this site, a biologists explains that the only way to stop certain microbes evolving is to plunge them into liquid nitrogen. Of course, you could be one of those creationists who seeks to differentiate between “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution” – in which case I wish you good luck, because the burden of proof is then all on you to give evidence that organisms can only evolve to a certain stage before they hit some invisible anti-evolution barrier unknown to science.

      Your analogy of the model T ford is a nudge at “intelligent design” – the idea of the watch found on the beach. A person finding such a mechanism would look at all the parts and conclude that it must have a designer. However, the analogy represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works. There doesn’t NEED to be any intelligence to evolution – it works without intelligence (or sentience).

      Rather than creating things from the top down, as when a designer makes something, evolution works from the bottom up. Over vast amounts of time, with limitless opportunities for genetic variation, organisms can gain complexity through random mutations that are honed by the organism’s environment, which dictates which organisms have the needed attributes to survive.

      Giraffes, for example, did not suddenly appear on the African savannah complete with their characteristic long necks. Rather, the forebears of giraffes had shorter necks, and offspring born with longer necks were inevitably more successful at surviving because they had access to more food that couldn’t be reached by their stubbier counterparts.

      This is essentially what evolution is. I would recommend you do more research and give the matter more thought before attacking it.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      I hope, Willows, that you follow Cedars’ advice and teach yourself something about evolution before making any more comments on it.

      As to the Bible, do you credit such wisdom it contains with the the essential nous, experience and learning of its authors, or are you of the opinion that the Bible is a book apart, a complete guide to life and of divine inspiration?

  95. Willows says:

    Cedars with all due respect for viewpoint. I would have to say rather than a nudge towards intelligent design I would rather give it a push forward. Why…

    Look around you, the room you are in now.
    Everything in your room has been produced with intelligent designers. For a moment shut your eyes an imagine you can not see, you don’t even know what sight is. How can you design an eye ? Please explain. Do you think it was not designed?

    • Cedars says:

      Willows – your response gives the unmistakeable impression that you haven’t even looked at my earlier reply to you – particularly the latter half. Tell me – did you read any of it?

  96. Willows says:

    Rowland do you think you are the result of evolution? All your body parts in the same place as a person from South America, Africa,
    Japan,Spain,France….

    All body parts in the same position….Doctors would have big problems operating on a body with mutations.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Please willows, before making any further comments on evolution, read about the subject. Your display of ignorance is getting embarrassing. Yes mankind is a species, and for all that we have some individual traits we can mate and produce fertile live young. Try reading Darwin’s ‘The Descent of Man’, or indeed any reputable book on the subject. It is clear you have never made the slightest attempt.

  97. Willows says:

    Cedars yes I read your comments. You have not answered my reply, about your eye sight
    development. Do you think it was not designed?

    • Cedars says:

      Willows – I find it curious that I am expected to respond to your comments, but you are free to ignore mine – as evidenced by the fact that you didn’t even acknowledge my explanation as to why your intelligent design argument doesn’t apply to evolution.

      The evolution of the eye is a remarkable thing. You would do well to research it. I’ve already alluded in the above article (I’m dubious now as to whether you read it?) to certain forms of salamander that have lost their eyes gradually over millions of years after being trapped in total darkness and no longer having use for them. Necessity, you see, is the mother of invention. It is what makes evolution work. If an organism would survive better if only it had light-sensitive cells clustered together in a certain configuration, then over millions of years and with an almost infinite number of opportunities for genetic trial-and-error, nature can (and does) make it happen.

  98. Willows says:

    Cedars I have replied to your view of the origin of life as we see it today with it’s many complex appearances.

    I asked you to look around your room and note everything in your room has been designed by intelligent designers. Logic does not tell me these things appeared in my room without a designer. However how many millions of years pass by.

    Some life forms do amazing things, it would
    takes ages to record. But once again I say to you inanimate and animate things give evidence of design. Evolution to my mind is a long bow, a bridge too far away from logic ,
    it is an excuse.

    When you walk into an art gallery as I have all over the world. Europe and Asia. All of these splendid and magnificent works of art are acknowledged by the galleries having an artist name plate. Yet people go outside these galleries into the real world and give no acknowledgement [not all people] to the intelligence around them.

    Sometimes, it is best said, “we agree to disagree.” As I said earlier I don,t believe
    evolution has the answers.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Willows – why are you so keen to display your ignorance?

    • Cedars says:

      Willows – agreeing to disagree is something normally done when both parties fully grasp eachother’s arguments but reach an impasse. However, your comments demonstrate a lack of understanding as to what evolution actually is – hence you cannot fully grasp my argument, nor the fact that whether evolution exists or not is non-negotiable because it is all around us. Saying “I don’t believe evolution has the answers” is about as silly as saying “I don’t believe gravity has the answers.”

      Again, I would encourage you to research the subject, but I somehow doubt you will.

  99. Excelsior, formerly known as George says:

    Willows,

    You have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

    All your analogies to things in rooms and motor cars are not biological systems, are they?

    The eye has evolved independently in many species over millions of years. We have fossil evidence that shows how eyes came to be.

    Indeed, there are species out there that make our eyes look rubbish. Their eyes help them survive in their environment.

    If you continue to use manufactured items as analogies, you will never understand evolution. There are many sites on the internet that have helpful information. Or you could visit your local library.

    I wish you good fortune in your journey of discovery!

    Peace be with you

    Excelsior!

  100. palma says:

    cedars, it’s a fact that watchtower is creationist but the evolution will still a theory until we don’t observ fossils of animals evolving in another species. I am no expert but watch what experts tell about it in this video and you will see that evolution is only a philosophy. It talks also about the matter of datation… if you don’t have time watch at least the talks of professor Giertich in the last 14 minutes of the video.
    [pro-creationist video link removed]

  101. Palma says:

    Cedars, you too confessed being no expert in your video! It makes you at least much ignorant than i am! Besides you deleted the video made by scientists that explained why evolution is not a fact and you didn’t even explain why. Could you give a clue?

    • Cedars says:

      I cannot be as ignorant as you are if you are criticizing evolution while simultaneously showing the world how little you know about it with a comment like the one below…

      “evolution will still a theory until we don’t observ fossils of animals evolving in another species”

      Again, I suggest you research the subject. You will then find that evolution works slowly and incrementally over vast periods of time. There can be no such thing as a “fossil of an animal evolving into another species” because that is not how evolution works. If you don’t understand that, then frankly you have no place offering an opinion on the subject.

      According to professor and author Brian Alters, 99.9% of scientists accept evolution as fact. If some of the crackpots who make up the 0.01% have clubbed together and made a video attempting to refute evolution that is their prerogative. But I work hard on JWsurvey to make sure it contains nothing but truth and facts. I will not have it hijacked by you or any so-called scientist who refuses to take hard evidence seriously for reasons that are most likely to do with emotional bias towards religious texts and narrow-minded interpretations thereof.

      Is that clear?

  102. Palma says:

    I expected you to be more neutral when you are not even an expert on the subject. You removed the video made by scientists that disagree with the evolution theory (and labeled it pro-creationist) but let all the pro-evolutionist videos). Thought we should always have both sides of the story!

    • Cedars says:

      I am no more “neutral” when it comes to accepting evolution than I am “neutral” when it comes to accepting gravity. Both are factual and based on evidence. There is no “other side of the story” to be told other than a backwards take on reality that skips past reason and evidence and attempts to graft religious dogma and narrow-mindedness over what is observably true.

  103. Palma says:

    Rowland, thanks for the link! Unfortunately is a 3 hours video but I watch it soon. Wish you could watch my video too and share about but it seems not allowed…

    • Cedars says:

      No, it’s not allowed, and I am unapologetic about removing it. I will also remove any videos you might post refuting gravity, the water cycle, Newton’s laws of thermodynamics or videos denouncing any other scientifically proven laws, forces or processes.

      I have no time for people who propagate falsehood to make themselves feel better about their own delusion.

      • palma says:

        If it was a fact, it wouldn’t be debated by Scientists. Facts like Gravity and etc is not debated! I propagate nothing at all, just asking for clean debate and respect. I would accept evolution if it was clear for all scientists. Delusion of what? All that matters is the truth.
        Don’t judge! you don’t know me! Do you?

        • Cedars says:

          Evolution is not debated by scientists, at least not by 99.9% of them. It is only the precise mechanics of how evolution works that is debated. The fact that it exists and shapes natural life all around us is plain for all but the most ignorant and blinkered religious zealots to see. There is no point “debating” something that is proven, or do you also believe we should debate the existence of strong and weak nuclear forces, or the fact that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way round?
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      I have read and watched a range of so called ‘scientific’ refutations of evolution and champions of creationism. None is remotely convincing. As Cedars says, evolution is a fact. There is much to be learned about the detailed biochemical mechanics and the specifics of every creature’s family tree from the original emergence of earthly life, but no one except bibliolaters and koranolaters sees the 6 day creation story as anything other than a fusion of ancient pre – scientific myths.

  104. palma says:

    I am glad you are the one who found the truth and don’t need to debate. All other scientists against evolution are insane and paid by religion…(joking).

  105. palma says:

    All I have to say is they don’t agree with evolution and they have good arguments:
    M. Giertych – geneticist
    Guy Berthault – sedimentologist
    R. Fondi – paleontologist
    Boudreaux – inorganic chemist
    G. Sermonti – molecular biologist

    • Cedars says:

      There is nothing new in creationists rolling out so-called ‘scientists’ who will support their narrow-minded world view, most of whom, it turns out, share the same religious bias. An argument against evolution is an argument against logic, reason and hard evidence. If JWsurvey readers want to review this information they can find it on any of the creationist websites that abound online and which are utterly discredited by the scientific community in general. I’m determined that they won’t find such nonsense on here just because you and others are determined to drag people into sharing your ignorance. I make no apologies.

  106. palma says:

    Sorry, all you do is criticize and judge people. You could for example give some arguments on why the carbon 14 and uranium datation are totally reliable, or other subjects. Rather you only argument is to put all people, non-evolutionists in the same box as “religious ignorants”.
    If you were not ignorant like US, you would argue instead.

  107. palma says:

    Don’t become like the organization you are fighting in this website!

    • Cedars says:

      Don’t be ridiculous. The organization I am fighting prospers precisely because it is so successful in duping people like you into believing that every page of the bible should be taken literally even if its account is subsequently dis-proven by science.

      I work too hard on this website to surrender it to you or anyone like you who believes that if there is a disagreement between science and the bible it must be science that is wrong. I make no apologies for curtailing your efforts to dupe people into embracing your ignorance. I work damned hard on keeping this website factual and authoritative, and I won’t have it hijacked or defaced with your anti-science nonsense.

      Are you going to continue trolling or do we need to block you?

  108. Rowland Nelken says:

    Palma- What motivates you to refute evolution? Are you hooked on the ‘truth’ of the Bible story? If so, why?

    What is so special about a jumble of writings from the Eastern Med. compiled between 1700 and 2500 years ago from a range of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts?

    Whatever the literary merit and historical and linguistic interest, and there is plenty of all three, why should writings compiled in a pre – scientific age be assumed to be a scientifically reliable account of the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life on earth?

    You seem, Palma, to be a Bibliolater. Please explain why.

  109. Palma says:

    Guys, the problem is that I am being prejuged! I am not even talking about the bible! lot of people who believe in evolution are like religious people, they believe because “authority” say it’s the truth, they aren’t capable of explaining because they didn’t study genetics or else (they have faith in the little they know)… Me neither, but all i searched was opinions…

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      I have heard that one before. What then, Palma, is your view on the origin of species? If you do not believe in evolution, how do you account for the variety of species of plants, animals, fungi and other life forms now populating earth?

      I have only come across evolution deniers who are hooked on the Bible or Koran. They imagine that if evidence for evolution is lacking (which it isn’t, of course) then, by default, the Bible story must be true.

      Is that your take, Palma, or do you have another narrative completely to describe how the variety of life froms we know emerged?

  110. Palma says:

    I even posted in the videos section in this site a link that contradicts the bible origin. http://www.davidovits.info/the-lost-fresco-and-the-bible-my-new-book-in-french/
    So I am open minded and open to dialog but I don’t put all my faith in things only because authority say so. For me it’s even possible that the bible and the evolution are wrong. You see the evolution theory is evolving too, since they don’t find the missing links darwin’s told, then instantaneous evolution was born. The watchtower did the same, when nothing happened in 1914 then Jesus came invisibly. Can’t argue cause Jesus is invisible, and for the evolution we must believe adaption will one day lead to another species but will never see a gigantic animal never observed before appearing in nature. This is my opinion of what I can understand in this moment.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Well that at least is clear. You, Palma, understand nothing.

      Learn something about evolution first and then come back.

      You are in no position to offer an opinion on something of which you are totally ignorant. Scientific authority backs up its claims with evidence.

      You, Palma, have provided sufficient evidence of your pathetic ignorance. You are incapable of making a useful comment on the subject of evolution.

  111. Excelsior says:

    Palma,

    Scientific progress and religious expediency are not synonymous.

    The theory of evolution has indeed evolved as new evidence has come to light. However, the basic premise has not changed from Darwin’s and Wallace’s beginnings. Natural selection is a fact.

    You seem to be conflating truth with scientific fact. They are not the same! Scientific fact is always pending change, whereas truth is a philosophical ideal.

    As mentioned before, do some proper research, using reputable websites. There’s so much to appreciate and learn about out there.

    Peace be with you

    Excelsior!

  112. Rowland Nelken says:

    Palma- Please explain why the reliability of carbon 14 dating calls into question the theory of evolution.

    I have never, by the way, attended an ‘evolution class’. I have, however, read books on evolution by Charles Darwin and others as well as anti evolution drivel published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other creationists.

    I have never come across an anti -evolutionist, whatever their scientific credentials, who is not motivated by a determination to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the Bible is the infallible word of God.

    Apart from waving ‘Carbon 14′ in our faces which, by itself, demonstrates nothing, all you have done Palma, is try to imagine that there are ‘two sides’ to a question where only one side exists.

    There are no credible flat earthers, no credible gravity deniers, no credible advocates of an earth centred universe. In the same way there are no credible deniers of evolution. Saying ‘Carbon 14 dating is reliable’ (or even ‘Carbon 14 dating is not reliable’) tells us, in isolation, nothing about anything.

    You, Palma, have gone out of your way, it seems, to present yourself as someone who is determined to display and flaunt their pathetic ignorance.

    You can hardly go off in a huff merely because your attempts to display your ignorance have been so clearly recognised.

  113. palma says:

    So you read some darwin books and now you are the know-it-all scholar? I have “L’origine des espèces” and have the right to disagree, and you are just an offensive person. Thousands of scientists don’t agree with natural selection. And many scientists don’t take position cause it can be harmful to their career. Check the 2013 list : http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      No, Palma, I do not not ‘know it all’.

      I referred to some of the books I have read explaining evolution and also to some that support creationism.

      The former are convincing and clear; the latter pathetic and absurd.

      You, Palma, have given no reasons for supporting creationism. You did not answer my question about Carbon 14 dating and its relevance.

      A tiny minority of scientists, all, it appears, Bibliolaters, have taken issue with the facts of evolution.

      You have failed to explain your position Palma, and have resorted to mere insults.

      If you have any reasons for doubting the known facts of evolution, please explain.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Please list, Palma, if not the ‘thousands’ of scientists’ who disagree with the facts of natural selection, at least afew hundred.

      The names of those who fear their careers are at stake should they voice their disbelief of facts would also be interesting.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Science, by definition, demands constant questioning. There is nothing at all surprising that, assuming it is authentic, the scientists on that list encourage questioning of Darwin’s assumptions.

      Scepticism of the ability of random mutation to account for life’s diversity is one thing.

      Is there any information on what, if any, alternative theories, any of the scientists on the list has put forward?

      Is there a single one who has ‘backed’ the account given in the first two chapters of Genesis and offered peer reviewed evidence to support his/her claims?

      Do you have any info., Palma, on who took the time to circulate this letter around the globe, requesting signatures of assent?

      Some information would be interesting.

      • Cedars says:

        Rowland, Palma is blocked. You don’t get to repeatedly refute science on this website and then complain at people being “offensive” for pointing out the leaky or non-existent logic in your arguments.

        • Rowland Nelken says:

          Thanks, Cedars. Do you happen to know the provenance of that list of ‘random mutation’ skeptics?

          • Cedars says:

            If you’re referring to the list of ‘scientists’ who appeared in the video, I see no reason to establish the credentials of a list of science-deniers. In the recent Ham v. Nye debate it was notable that Ham was able to trot out a list of names from the science community who supported his views that the earth is 6,000 years old.

            It’s an old trick used by creationists, and it proves nothing – other than that not all scientists are immune from religious bias.

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

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.