Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[ecco]

Where will I find evolution hidden in the creation account?

You won't find evolution hidden in the creation account. The ancient writers had no way of knowing anything about evolution. And, since there is nothing in Genesis regarding evolution, we can be certain Genesis wasn't inspired by a God.

On the other hand, we can clearly see that Genesis is really no different from the other tens of thousands of creation stories contrived by man.

 

[ecco]

But if this big climate change affected the meteorology like ours is probably going to be affected, there were probably some horrendous storms with gigantic floods.

They must have happened many times before. I wonder how ditches like the Grand Canyon got so wide, so deep?

You don't need "gigantic floods" to create "ditches like the Grand Canyon".

Slow and steady over vast expanses of time work really well. Keep in mind that entire mountain ranges get eroded over time by wind and rain.

If you really "wonder" then do some basic Googling on Grand Canyon Erosion and, for a different scenario, Scablands.

 

[Audie]

You don't need "gigantic floods" to create "ditches like the Grand Canyon".

Slow and steady over vast expanses of time work really well. Keep in mind that entire mountain ranges get eroded over time by wind and rain.

If you really "wonder" then do some basic Googling on Grand Canyon Erosion and, for a different scenario, Scablands.

The facile explanation is so much
easier than the grim spectre of study.
I even stayed up late as a student.

 

[Audie]

You don't need "gigantic floods" to create "ditches like the Grand Canyon".

Slow and steady over vast expanses of time work really well. Keep in mind that entire mountain ranges get eroded over time by wind and rain.

If you really "wonder" then do some basic Googling on Grand Canyon Erosion and, for a different scenario, Scablands.

I wonder at what point in the "flood" this "grand canyon"
stuff would happen.

During 40 days ( and nights) of rain?

The water was wafted away by a wind
rather than running down a drain, after all.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

@Deeje , @nPeace :
Just got through watching an "Aron Ra" video on YouTube. He was at a Reason Rally, arguing with those professing Christ and the Bible. There were a lot of people in that video, some taking Mr. Ra's side of the issue. And a woman, who was Mr. Ra's assistant and taping it I think, told this one guy who stated that salvation is free, "Your God wants me to curse my morality, and that's too high a price!"

And here we have it...
This comment just underscores what we've known, that Jehovah God's standards on morality -- that we need to exercise self- restraint especially regarding sexual desires -- is one reason that led to this accepted practice of denigrating, even hating, the Bible. Anything that seems to discredit the Scriptures (like Common Descent), is received with pleasure...to them, it validates their life choices.

Many simply don't want to 'control their passions' (like the girl above), and it often results in unhappiness in one form or another, later on.

That's it?

That's your "smoking gun"?

Something one person said, once, in one situation, in one video. Someone asks you to watch the videos of a person - a person who has put online HOURS of video footage including lectures, debates and discussions on the subject - and the sum total of all you think matters in the entirety of what you watch is what one person on the periphery of an event in one video says - once. And you think this is enough proof to determine the entire thought process of not just every other person in those videos, and of Aron-Ra, but of every person who happens to hold the same belief about evolutionary theory as the person speaking?

Are you serious?

 

[Audie]

That's it?

That's your "smoking gun"?

Something one person said, once, in one situation, in one video. Someone asks you to watch the videos of a person - a person who has put online HOURS of video footage including lectures, debates and discussions on the subject - and the sum total of all you think matters in the entirety of what you watch is what one person on the periphery of an event in one video says - once. And you think this is enough proof to determine the entire thought process of not just every other person in those videos, and of Aron-Ra, but of every person who happens to hold the same belief about evolutionary theory as the person speaking?

Are you serious?

Any excuse to claim that those who
reject their religion do so because of
their unbrideled lust for sin.

It is absolutely disgusting bigotty on their
part.

But...lying, to themselves, or whoever gets in
range is essential to propping up their notion
that they are the righteous and holy.

So perhaps we should feel compassion for
those in such an ugly and untenable
predicament.

 

[ecco]

Science is perfect. Science can not be bad (or good?).

That begins to look like a Deity. And folks are beginning to treat it as such, and I think I need to think about this some more, because it's interesting.

More BS. The only people who would put science and deity into the same context are Fundies.

 

[ecco]

You shout too much. You did pick the right avatar pic, though.

RE: the avatar...On looking closely I now see it as a floppy dog. Until then, I thought it was a pile of poop.

 

[ecco]

That’s a fair point!
Individuals’ ‘desire for a dollar’ — their greed — has been a contributing factor.

Indeed. Let's not forget about the ‘desire for a dollar — their greed' when it comes to writers and touters of Creationist nonsense. I guarantee that Ken Ham makes a lot more money than the average degreed archeologist or paleontologist.

Ditti the folks at Discovery Institute with all their books and contributions.

People like archeologists and paleontologists advance knowledge. People like Ken Ham promote and perpetuate ignorance.

 

[metis]

If you'd like to start a thread metis, I will show you clearly from the scriptures the difference between Christendom and JW's....just using the Bible.

Are you up for that?

Nope, as your tactics aren't ethical as you twist things to suit your purpose and then you ramble and ramble and ramble instead of getting to the point as we see in your last two posts above directed at me. And then you bring in things not under discussion, often repeating the same pathetic and highly bigoted lies over and over again, and then you whine when you're called out on your stereotypes and lies. You ignore the reality of what science has to offer and yet you blindly assume your JW teachers are right while ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

Therefore, it is virtually impossible to have a serious discussion with you because of your disingenuous tactics, such as your refusal to even consider historical evidence dealing with the Church itself, such as what we saw in your first post above.

No, I'm not interested as I said in my last post to you, but I will be commenting at times on your misrepresentation of the Truths that we do know, whether that be on this thread or some others.

 

[ecco]

'science is perfect and innocent' and cloak themselves in it,

Again, the only people who make comments like that are ignorant fundies trying to equate science to ignorance.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, I did.....you asked:

....and I linked the above -- "without evident precursors" -- from the New World Encyclopedia, a source which underpins current scientific views.

Take care.

So you believe the folks at New World Encyclopedia are the ultimate authorities on the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossil record? If they say something is so, then it is so? Is that true for all subjects or just this one?

 

[Jose Fly]

I wouldn't ask you a simple question, Jose....... it might stump you.
And the post of mine that you call childish is looking better by the hour.


I'm not sure about you, Jose.
I begin to wonder whether your 'I am a Biologist' claim has any great depth?
Lab Technician?
Hospital Lab?

I mean, the employee who cleans out the reptile tanks in the local pet shop could claim quite honestly to be a biologist, and I can, do and would give that job respect.

You shout too much. You did pick the right avatar pic, though.

So we can safely add "hypocrite" to the list of adjectives that describe you. On one hand you tell us not to get personal, but then....well.....this.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Your God wants me to curse my morality, and that's too high a price!"

You may have seen a recent post discussing how Jesus' morality is not mine. If I can borrow a term or two from theology, the greatest sin is the one wherein one betrays one's own values. I couldn't in good conscience substitute a moral code I consider inadequate for one that better represents my sense of right and wrong.

Jehovah God's standards on morality -- that we need to exercise self- restraint especially regarding sexual desires -- is one reason that led to this accepted practice of denigrating, even hating, the Bible.

That's the position of many people who don't consult the Bible for advice, and therefore could not constitute such a person's grounds for rejecting the Bible as a source of instruction.

We reject biblical ethics not be they prevent us from living debauched lives, but because they don't reflect what we think or how we think. I'm a married man, and choose to exercise sexual restraint because it's right and it's smart, not because Jehovah commands it.

The point is that the secular humanist's ethics may overlap Christian ethic, but when they do, that's coincidence. We arrived at our common values along different paths. If I don't kill, it's because I don't want to, not because it is commanded. I consult conscience and reason for my moral code, not scripture.

Indeed. Let's not forget about the ‘desire for a dollar — their greed' when it comes to writers and touters of Creationist nonsense. I guarantee that Ken Ham makes a lot more money than the average degreed archeologist or paleontologist.

I often say that creationism is an idea that can't be used for anything legitimate. I add the word legitimate, because, of course, creationism can be used to make money.

Therefore, it is virtually impossible to have a serious discussion with you because of your disingenuous tactics, such as your refusal to even consider historical evidence dealing with the Church itself, such as what we saw in your first post above. No, I'm not interested as I said in my last post to you, but I will be commenting at times on your misrepresentation of the Truths that we do know, whether that be on this thread or some others.

This is what commonly happens. We're not really trying to communicate with the person we are posting to because we know that that is a futile task. But we still want to rebut assorted claims, so we click on Reply and answer, our intended audience being those that can benefit from a reasoned argument.

 

[SkepticThinker]

@Deeje , @nPeace :
Just got through watching an "Aron Ra" video on YouTube. He was at a Reason Rally, arguing with those professing Christ and the Bible. There were a lot of people in that video, some taking Mr. Ra's side of the issue. And a woman, who was Mr. Ra's assistant and taping it I think, told this one guy who stated that salvation is free, "Your God wants me to curse my morality, and that's too high a price!"

And here we have it...
This comment just underscores what we've known, that Jehovah God's standards on morality -- that we need to exercise self- restraint especially regarding sexual desires -- is one reason that led to this accepted practice of denigrating, even hating, the Bible. Anything that seems to discredit the Scriptures (like Common Descent), is received with pleasure...to them, it validates their life choices.

Many simply don't want to 'control their passions' (like the girl above), and it often results in unhappiness in one form or another, later on.

Um, I think you've misinterpreted. She didn't say "I don't want to be moral! I don't want to practice morality!"
According to you, she said "Your God wants me to curse MY morality." Now, I'm not sure if you're aware or not, but a lot of us nonbelievers find the stuff that God supposedly dictates in the Bible to be immoral (like slavery, for instance). It sounds to me like she's saying that succumbing to your God's system of morality (which unbelievers don't find to be particularly moral), in exchange for some Heaven reward is not worth it if she has to give up her own system of morality in the process, because then she wouldn't be acting as a moral agent; instead, she'd just be following orders.

I don't know what "sexual desires" have to do with what she said or what "passions" you think the girl doesn't want to control or how you've drawn that conclusion from what she said.

Do you have anything to say about the evidence and arguments Aron Ra has presented? Or should we assume your silence on the matter indicates that you agree with everything Aron presented?

 

[metis]

This is what commonly happens. We're not really trying to communicate with the person we are posting to because we know that that is a futile task. But we still want to rebut assorted claims, so we click on Reply and answer, our intended audience being those that can benefit from a reasoned argument.

Good point. And all too often I tend just to focus on whom I'm responding to and not others who may read what we're posting.

Ah, you're so wise.

 

[Audie]

RE: the avatar...On looking closely I now see it as a floppy dog. Until then, I thought it was a pile of poop.

So I was not the only one!

 

[oldbadger]

Good to read.

Eight panels and the solar water heater are enough to power our home. We live closer to the equator than you do, and have over 2000 hours of high sun a year, meaning that each panel receives and harvests a relatively large amount of sunlight.

I've watched quite a bit of documentary television about Western Europe revealing all kinds of wind farms, including massive arrays of windmills in the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea. Even in the background shots of various ports and piers, I frequently see windmills.

Congratulations to your government and culture for its contribution to the welfare of the world as well as making itself politically and economically more secure.



Yes, you've told me that. What I've asked you before is, metaphor for what? Metaphors represent something else, as when I say that somebody is a pistol. It's clear that the pistol is a metaphor for a certain kind of personality and demeanor.

What does Genesis represent? What really happened?

I don't see why we don't simply call it what it appears to be - an account of the early earth that was once widely believed as written, but is now known to be mostly wrong.



You're reading into my words and injecting a message of your own invention into them, not the one I offered. What I wrote is that science is not responsible for the ways that government and industry apply it, not that science is all knowledge, and certainly not anything supernatural or religious.

Science deserves our respect and our gratitude. There is nothing else like it. I mentioned the recent explosive revolution in forensic science to you in an earlier post, one which has made police investigations and courtroom trials much more likely to identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent, which has been of benefit beyond just ensuring justice. Many of these cases are so compelling that the accused simply confesses to avoid an inevitable conviction and a harsher sentence, thus saving the taxpayer and the families of the victim and defendant the cost and ordeal of a trial, not to mention the disincentive of having potential criminals coming to believe that if they commit such crimes, they'll probably be caught however careful one is, however much you scrub up the blood, stage the crime scene, avoid leaving fingerprints, or try to collect your spent shell casings.

That progress deserves a standing ovation. Once again, science has improved the human condition and made life better. Acknowledging that is hardly turning science into more than it is or deifying it as you have suggested.

But you are correct that science itself doesn't do harm. It just tells us how the world works. The worst it can do is get that wrong.



What matters is if they witnessed the flood described in Genesis, not just any bid flood. You would recognize the biblical flood had it occurred as the one that inundated all dry land following a 40 day rainstorm, and killed all but eight people. If that's not what these witnesses were looking at, then their witness is irrelevant to the matter of the biblical flood.

Personally, I think that global flood myths are the result of finding marine fossils at high altitudes in mountains that were formally sea floors. It was certainly easier to envision the water rising to the level of the highest mountain tops than to picture the mountain rising that far out of the sea. And of course, routine floods, which aren't miles deep, wouldn't account for that finding anyway.

Also, when we explain the Bible in terms of the limitations and shortcomings of the people of the past and their misinterpretations of observed phenomena, we're basically taking the magic and divinity out of it and rendering it an ordinary human endeavor of historical value only, not a divine guide to living and learning.

Wow!
What a lot of care you have taken here.
I cannot reply for another 2 hours, but I certainly will.
Thank you again.

 

[oldbadger]

Good to read.
Eight panels and the solar water heater are enough to power our home. We live closer to the equator than you do, and have over 2000 hours of high sun a year, meaning that each panel receives and harvests a relatively large amount of sunlight.
I've watched quite a bit of documentary television about Western Europe revealing all kinds of wind farms, including massive arrays of windmills in the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea. Even in the background shots of various ports and piers, I frequently see windmills.
Congratulations to your government and culture for its contribution to the welfare of the world as well as making itself politically and economically more secure.

The wind generators off our shores here are so huge that they seem like a few hundred yards off shore instead of 5 miles out. That's because they are about 150 meters high with one rotor at tdc. That's how we can see the London Array 25 miles away, after rain clears the atmosphere, the sun can light up hundreds of rotors circulating on the horizon.... amazing.

The nearest home to mine with Solar Voltaic panels has 16 on its roof, which is probably the average around here. These systems send, upload or back-charge (?) electricity in to our national grid and thus their electricity meters credit the home's account if it is giving back more than it is using. One neighbour's large system cost £18,000 to install back in 2004, so I guess that would be more expensive today. Governments have offered financial grants in order to attract householders to have them fitted, but I believe that grants and various benefits have been reduced now.

A friend of mine had solar water panels installed back in 2000, but he had many troubles with that during the summer. The system didn't seem to be able to control upper temperatures and on a couple of occasions the system burst and flooded the central part of his home. That put me off solar water heating! But solar voltaic panels are everywhere here.

Any new buildings, extensions, conversions or upgrades have to use 75mm and/or 100mm foil faced insulation panels either inside single skin or between cavity walls, and even between flooring and loft joists.

Our windows have to be fitted with double and triple glazing which reflects heat back in to the property, and argon is the gas used mostly in glazing cavities because it does not expand so much when heated by sunlight. More inert.. External glazing in these (modern) sealed units reflects sunlight away in order to keep cavity temperatures down in summer. Many years ago I installed our replacement d/g windows myself (before legislation controlled who could install such windows). I was worried about sealed units blowing in high temperatures and so fitted a tyre valve to a double glazing 300x300 d/g sample's spacer-rail, equalised pressure in the cavity and then left it out in sunlight for an hour. When I tested the internal pressure with a bike pressure gauge it read 40psi which really worried me, so I asked the manager at the sealed unit plant to lay my units flat and place a weight in the centre of the glass before sealing them. In the winter this distorts reflections but I've not had a blown sealed unit yet, not in two decades.

Oh dear......... I've slid far away from the thread, I'm afraid.
And I still haven't answered your most pertinent points and questions. I'll have to revisit and reply again to this post........

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, you've told me that. What I've asked you before is, metaphor for what? Metaphors represent something else, as when I say that somebody is a pistol. It's clear that the pistol is a metaphor for a certain kind of personality and demeanor.
What does Genesis represent? What really happened?
I don't see why we don't simply call it what it appears to be - an account of the early earth that was once widely believed as written, but is now known to be mostly wrong.

OK....... Let's try this....... I have read beautiful accounts of how the world was formed by North American Indians, and members like @Vinayaka could probably describe accounts about creation of the world by Hindu God/s (which would be interesting). And then there is early Genesis. My idea of metaphor is the application of a description that is not literal, but I don't feel that the writer has to know exactly what the literal explanation is...... do you feel that the writer should know? I mean, your writer bloody well knows that a person cannot shoot bullets, and knows exactly what a pistol is, and so, do you expect this level of knowledge to be present before somebody describes a thing or event I personally don't think so... and so Genesis doesn't upset me in the least.

I can tell you that in 1953 primary school books about geography (where I attended) showed an introductory picture showing how the planets were formed..... the sun produced a blister caused by centrifugal forces which expanded outwards in to a long plume of matter which then split up in to clumps which became planets. I wish I had that book now! It's just unbelievably crazy that only 65 years ago scholl books like that were still around. And that was at a Church of England school!

The description in Genesis beats that easily, because we now know that we couldn't be alive without star-dust from above (carbon from super-novae), that life might/could have been initiated from the 'heavens', that the seas came along later (Genesis got that bit slightly too early ), ........ in fact the more I read about Earth's development so the more impressed I am.

I live in a country which on-the-whole is much less heated about religion and creation stories, probably because religion here is so small..... many church communions on Sundays around here might have congregations of five or less people. OK, the Catholic Church has about 30 I hear. We just don't feel too threatened by Christianity any more. The Kingdom Hall is the only religious centre which has such a large congregation that our town is divided in two with two JW congregations of about 100+ people so that they don't have to build yet another Hall for a while. And Herne Bay is a small seaside town.......

And so I cannot cross swords over the issue of my perception of Genesis being a (kind of) metaphor against your perception of Genesis being a 'wrong description'... have I got that about right? To me it's just a quaint description which I can place as metaphor. And I reckon that some descriptions in later Genesis could be based upon truth.

I'm a Deist, and I don't think many of us get too agitated about our belief, about Theism being wrong.