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.









Further reading…

196 thoughts on “Why Watchtower has no place criticizing other Christian faiths as unscientific

  • December 29, 2013 at 8:04 am


    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.

    • December 29, 2013 at 8:22 am

      Please do some research on the subject, like the Lenski experiment.

  • December 29, 2013 at 8:17 am

    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 …..

    • December 29, 2013 at 8:30 am

      Ok, I was willing to humor HMC 2011 and his crazy, incoherent and ignorant ramblings right up until he called evolution a “cult.”

      Sorry guys, I know you were having fun with him, but I need to draw the line somewhere. There are lurking JWs we need to think about.


  • December 29, 2013 at 10:25 am

    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.:

    Apóstolo Testemunha dos Deuses Santos desde o Brasil

    • December 29, 2013 at 10:55 am

      Changing one set of superstitions for another.

      Trocando um conjunto de superstições por outro.

  • December 29, 2013 at 5:03 pm

    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].

    • December 30, 2013 at 12:47 am

      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.

  • December 29, 2013 at 5:33 pm

    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.

  • December 29, 2013 at 6:12 pm

    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


  • December 29, 2013 at 11:05 pm

    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)!

  • December 29, 2013 at 11:51 pm

    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.

  • December 30, 2013 at 4:15 am

    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.

    • December 30, 2013 at 4:35 am

      “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.

    • December 30, 2013 at 5:47 am

      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.

  • December 30, 2013 at 4:20 am

    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.

    • December 30, 2013 at 4:41 am

      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.

  • December 30, 2013 at 5:09 am

    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?

  • December 30, 2013 at 5:31 am

    @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.


  • December 30, 2013 at 6:23 am

    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:……where is the monkey man is he still hanging from a tree ready to become fully human.

    • December 30, 2013 at 6:35 am

      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?

  • December 30, 2013 at 6:37 am

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

  • December 30, 2013 at 6:40 am

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

  • December 30, 2013 at 6:41 am

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

    • December 30, 2013 at 6:51 am

      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.

  • December 30, 2013 at 6:44 am

    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.

    • December 30, 2013 at 7:08 am

      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?

      • December 30, 2013 at 7:56 am

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

      • December 30, 2013 at 8:05 am

        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.

  • December 30, 2013 at 6:47 am

    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.

  • December 30, 2013 at 6:49 am

    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.

  • December 30, 2013 at 6:53 am

    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.

    • December 30, 2013 at 6:59 am

      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.

  • December 30, 2013 at 6:58 am

    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

  • December 30, 2013 at 7:03 am

    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.

  • December 30, 2013 at 7:08 am

    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?

  • December 30, 2013 at 7:25 am

    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.

    • December 30, 2013 at 8:20 am

      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.

  • December 30, 2013 at 7:36 am

    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

  • December 30, 2013 at 7:37 am

    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.

    • December 30, 2013 at 7:41 am

      Rexx. I answered your question about Darwin’s letter. You have failed to answer anybody’s questions about anything. You are a great advert for presenting creationists as a collection of the angry and the ignorant.

  • December 30, 2013 at 7:48 am

    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.

  • December 30, 2013 at 10:34 am

    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.

    • December 30, 2013 at 10:42 am

      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.

  • December 30, 2013 at 10:57 am

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

    • December 30, 2013 at 11:05 am

      But what has faith to do with creationism and science?

  • December 30, 2013 at 1:34 pm

    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


  • December 30, 2013 at 3:53 pm

    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

  • December 31, 2013 at 9:44 am

    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:
    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!

  • December 31, 2013 at 11:57 am

    Look up evolution and adaptation… two completely different words
    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.
    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.

    • December 31, 2013 at 5:55 pm

      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.

    • December 31, 2013 at 8:11 pm

      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?

  • January 1, 2014 at 5:56 pm


    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.

  • January 2, 2014 at 4:24 am

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

  • January 2, 2014 at 6:30 pm

    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.

  • January 2, 2014 at 7:15 pm

    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.

    • January 2, 2014 at 9:36 pm

      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!

  • January 2, 2014 at 11:06 pm

    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!!

  • January 3, 2014 at 7:12 am

    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.

  • January 3, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    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!!

    • January 8, 2014 at 7:43 am

      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 .

      • January 8, 2014 at 1:35 pm

        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.

        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.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: