Trolling for validation is, indeed, a needy pastime.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Calling all young earth creationists!
- Thread starter Youtellme
- Start date
Skwim
Veteran Member
It appears that just because someone is a Jehovah's Witness they don't necessarily reject evolution.
Fom two Wikipedia pieces regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' belief.
"The Society dismisses Young Earth creationism (YEC) as "unscriptural and unbelievable",[145] and states that Jehovah's Witnesses "are not creationists", based on the more specific definition of believers in a 'young' earth created in six literal days: The Society instead teaches a form of Day-Age creationism"
__________________________________
"Day-age creationism, a type of old Earth creationism, is an interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but are much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years). The Genesis account is then reconciled with the age of the Earth. Proponents of the day-age theory can be found among both theistic evolutionists, who accept the scientific consensus on evolution, and progressive creationists, who reject it. The theories are said to be built on the understanding that the Hebrew word yom is used to refer to a time period, with a beginning and an end and not necessarily that of a 24-hour day."
So, although it seems most JWs do, in fact, reject evolution, apparently this isn't a universal position. Meaning that, while Dr. Paola Chiozzi is a JW, she can still accept evolution. In any case, as I showed in my previous post about her participation in a research project, she did acknowledge evolution by signing off on the paper.__________________________________
"Day-age creationism, a type of old Earth creationism, is an interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but are much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years). The Genesis account is then reconciled with the age of the Earth. Proponents of the day-age theory can be found among both theistic evolutionists, who accept the scientific consensus on evolution, and progressive creationists, who reject it. The theories are said to be built on the understanding that the Hebrew word yom is used to refer to a time period, with a beginning and an end and not necessarily that of a 24-hour day."
Last edited:
Thank you again
Trust me, despite the above, the theory of evolution is not accepted. There are publications such as "Was Life Created?", "How did life get here, by Evolution or Creation?" and "The Origin of Life--Five Questions Worth Asking". And every month, the Awake runs and an article on biology asking if stuff was created or came about by chance. All of these try to disprove Evolution. Here's a link to the site. Online Books That Help You Study the Bible
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
He did say it wasn't a universal position within the JW church - in fact, he said most JWs did not accept evolution. But the point remains that there are still some JWs that accept evolution.
Secretly probably, but not openly. I am a JW so I know.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Are you saying that there are no JWs who openly accept evolution?
Yes. I'd say so. I'm sure there are some who are open to the idea but not openly. Me for example!
Draka
Wonder Woman
Just because you are a JW I don't think that means you can speak for all JWs. One of a large group cannot usually speak for all of a large group. Even JWs. I've known some JWs in my time as well. Had some In-Laws that were JWs. Believe me, one cannot speak for all. :no:
Sorry, but I am not convinced that Paola Chiozzi rejects evolution just because you say she must because of her religion. Especially when Skiwm has provided evidence to the contrary. Plenty of people reject some portion of the dogma of their own religion.
But tell me, is it true that Jehovah's Witnesses are discouraged from obtaining higher academic degrees? If Paola Chiozzi has disregarded this directive how can you be so sure she hasn't disregarded the directive concerning evolution? You can dismiss the evidence Skiwm has given, people who reject evolution are good at ignoring evidence.
But seriously my point in asking you for three names is not that it can't be done. I have asked many creationists on this board and no one has ever come up with three names, in fact no one has ever come up with one. Nevertheless I think it is not an impossible task. My point however is to point out how difficult it is. And I trust you get that point.
fantôme profane;3265474 said:Sorry, but I am not convinced that Paola Chiozzi rejects evolution just because you say she must because of her religion. Especially when Skiwm has provided evidence to the contrary. Plenty of people reject some portion of the dogma of their own religion.
But tell me, is it true that Jehovah's Witnesses are discouraged from obtaining higher academic degrees? If Paola Chiozzi has disregarded this directive how can you be so sure she hasn't disregarded the directive concerning evolution? You can dismiss the evidence Skiwm has given, people who reject evolution are good at ignoring evidence.
Perhaps you should email her...And yes, it is discouraged because it could be a distraction from preaching and spiritual activities. Also, Paola was a scientist before she became a Witness. And the problem is that as far as we're concerned, if there was no Adam, then Jesus sacrifice was pointless.
fantôme profane;3265474 said:
Yeah, it is quite tricky as this link proves....
Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skwim
Veteran Member
Considering that the Watchtower Society claims 7.78 million followers, your hubris is duly noted.
Excuse me if I take your surety with a grain of salt.
If you went to our meetings, you'd see what the organisations thoughts on the matter are. In fact, there was a talk recently on the subject of Evolution not being compatible with Christianity. Like I said, it is not supported. However, there may be individuals who feel otherwise.
And you don't have to take my comments with a grain of salt. I'm still trying to make my mind up on the matter. It's like this, I've been a JW for 18 years and the whole time I have been taught that evolution doesn't make sense, considering the apparent hallmarks of design we see in nature. On the other hand, the vast majority of scientists say that evolution is a proven fact, so I stand divided.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
You've managed to superimpose an appeal-to-consequences fallacy onto an affirmation-of-the-consequent fallacy; quite a feat.
And you've managed to confuse me...please simplify your point:help:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I applaud you for taking the step and learning and trying to figure it out instead of just accepting the religious mainline opinions. If there is a God, he/she/it wants you to search and find the truth, not just accept someone's opinions. The Bible and the Quran do not say that Evolution is false. If God wanted you to know that it was, it should have said so, explicitly.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
Apologies; confusion was not the intention.
The affirmation-of-the-consequent fallacy goes
- If Ais true, then B has to be true.
- B is true;
- therefore, A is true.
- If there were a burglar in the house, he'd be sure to creep around in absolute silence.
- Listen! Absolute silence!
- There must be a burglar in the house.
- Adam's fall had to lead to Jesus's sacrifice;
- Jesus's sacrifice, you believe, happened;
- therefore, Adam's fall must have happened.
The appeal to consequences is a fallacy popular among climate change deniers. It goes
- If A is true, then B has to be true.
- B is unacceptable to me;
- therefore, A is false.
- If Adam didn't exist, Jesus's sacrifice would be pointless;
- it is unacceptable for Jesus's sacrifice to have been pointless;
- therefore, Adam existed.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
What kind of sound does a giraffe make?
A giraffe doesn't make any noise.
How do you know if a giraffe is following you?
You don't hear anything.
:run:
Cheers for clearing that up. Can you see how I came to that conclusion? Scripturaly?
Wishful thinking?