Thank you for the Behe link at TallkOrigins Hillary. The information will be useful.
Society's latest stance on Evolution in Jan 1, 2008 WT (bonus quote mining)
by marmot 32 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
moshe
Thanks for the info- the WT writers are getting pretty lame these days. Pretty soon a JW 5th grader will be able to see through their poorly crafted (lies) logic.
-
Elsewhere
On the contrary, the WTS does in fact support and teach the theory of Evolution... only they don't use the word "evolution".
***
Watchtower - 1968 5/1 p.271 par.4 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time***Nor would his [Adam's] naming the animals take an unduly long time. The basic animal kinds could have been relatively quickly named, for when such basic kinds were taken into the ark in Noah’s day, it did not involve millions of beasts, but perhaps only a few hundred basic kinds. Thus, Adam’s naming of the animals and his realizing that he needed a counterpart would have occupied only a brief time after his creation.
***
Watchtower - 1957 5/15 p.316 par.16 Appreciating Basic Christian Publications***The ark was from 450 to 547 feet long (depending upon which cubit was used in measuring), 75 to 91 feet wide, and 45 to 54 feet high—a sizable structure that allowed abundant room for the various animal "kinds" described in Genesis, and from which all the varieties we now know have sprung.
-
MissingLink
Pretty soon a JW 5th grader will be able to see through their poorly crafted (lies) logic.
When that happens, the Watchtower will ban education past the 4th grade!
-
inkling
When that happens, the Watchtower will ban education past the 4th grade!
haha!
[ink]
-
Tatiana
On the contrary, the WTS does in fact support and teach the theory of Evolution... only they don't use the word "evolution".
***
Watchtower - 1968 5/1 p.271 par.4 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time *** Nor would his [Adam's] naming the animals take an unduly long time. The basic animal kinds could have been relatively quickly named, for when such basic kinds were taken into the ark in Noah’s day, it did not involve millions of beasts, but perhaps only a few hundred basic kinds. Thus, Adam’s naming of the animals and his realizing that he needed a counterpart would have occupied only a brief time after his creation.***
Watchtower - 1957 5/15 p.316 par.16 Appreciating Basic Christian Publications***The ark was from 450 to 547 feet long (depending upon which cubit was used in measuring), 75 to 91 feet wide, and 45 to 54 feet high—a sizable structure that allowed abundant room for the various animal "kinds" described in Genesis, and from which all the varieties we now know have sprung.
Great points, elsewhere!!
-
LtCmd.Lore
The ark was from 450 to 547 feet long (depending upon which cubit was used in measuring), 75 to 91 feet wide, and 45 to 54 feet high—a sizable structure that allowed abundant room for the various animal "kinds" described in Genesis, and from which all the varieties we now know have sprung .
I will point out that this is not like the real theory of evolution.
To say that a few thousand species can mutate into millions in just a few millennia is ridiculous! How they can disregard evolution and yet believe THIS is beyond me. It's the same thing, just squished into an inadequate timescale.
Real evolution takes millions of years.
-
stillajwexelder
Spot the brain cells in the writing department
-
hillary_step
Spot the brain cells in the writing department
Well, even 144,000 brain cells only gives them an advantage over a rubber plant, but lets face it even those limited brain cells fooled us for long enough. HS
-
Tuesday
My parents gave me the latest "public edition" watchtower and it has 4-page festival of circular logic and hypocritical quote-mining entitled "Is Evolution Compatible with the Bible?"
The opening salvo is golden, because they go and shoot themselves in the foot with it later on: "Is it possible that God used evolution to create men from beasts? Did God direct bacteria to develop into fish and then to continue developing through reptiles and mammals, so that finally a race of apes became humans?"
They then go on the usual logical merry-go-round saying that humans originated from one man because the bible says so, then onto ad-hominem attacks on liberal religious types who accept both the premise of evolution AND the bible (insert scripture about ears being tickled) then out comes the gist of their whole argument: mankind must have come from one man because the concept of the fall from perfection and the ransom would be invalidated if he came from apes.
They then bring out the pick-axes and start to quote mine by bringing in "Professor of biochemistry Michael Behe" to discredit all those silly evolutionists because Behe argues against biomolecular evolution as being irreducibly complex. Ignoring for a minute the fact that Behe's arguments have been rejected by the scientific community, BEHE HIMSELF AGREES WITH THE THEORY OF COMMON DESCENT!!!!!
That's right, the entire second half of the article is constructed around Behe's attacks on biomolecular evolution AS IF he were attacking the theory of common descent.
Gah, I'm just really pissed off that this sort of crap is still being published over twenty years after that farcical Creation book. Also, you'll notice that the art department dredged up the old props from the blue book in order to make the illustrations.This would bring in time for a subtle anti-witness; what I suppose one could say if this magazine is offered to you:
"I didn't realize that the theory of Biomolecular Evolution and Common Descent were the same thing?"
(you will probably need to explain Biomolecular Evolution vs. Common Descent here; because they will have no idea what the difference is)
"Did you know that an author wrote a book entitled Darwin's Black Box which he stated that while Biomolecular Evolution was not probable; the theory of Common Decent (man evolving from a lower species) was still correct? Are you familiar with this book?"
(if the response is no)
"You should be familiar with the book since it's quoted here. Would you think the author of this book would be happy that his book is quoted to promote a theory that he doesn't agree with? Are you trying to get something over on me? Why would you try to quote a book out of context to prove a theory that the author himself does not agree with?"I believe those would be some difficult questions to contend with, but feel free to add to them folks if you can.