Why Evolution Should Be Taught

by hamilcarr 360 Replies latest jw friends

  • Junction-Guy
    Junction-Guy

    I believe them both, and I believe that parts of those scriptures are referring back to an earlier event. Even if I couldn't explain it, I wouldn't have to have an answer for everything, some things will be saved for later. JW's have to have an answer for everything, they have to explain everything. Sometimes it is just better to not know everything before the right time. God will reveal all mysteries in the future, I am confident of that.

  • Junction-Guy
    Junction-Guy

    As long as they allow the disclaimer that it is only a theory, and can not be proven tangibly without a doubt, then I would be a little more receptive to it being taught.

  • snowbird
    snowbird
    I believe them both, and I believe that parts of those scriptures are referring back to an earlier event. Even if I couldn't explain it, I wouldn't have to have an answer for everything, some things will be saved for later. JW's have to have an answer for everything, they have to explain everything. Sometimes it is just better to not know everything before the right time. God will reveal all mysteries in the future, I am confident of that.

    It seems that chapter 2 is just a wrap-up of the account in chapter 1.

    Since the 7th day was when God ceased and desisted from any further creation, He could have continued creating on the 6th - even after Man was on the scene.

    Let the reader use discernment.

    Sylvia

  • Junction-Guy
    Junction-Guy

    good take snowbird

  • sir82
    sir82
    I believe them both

    I'm speechless. Do you also believe that 2 + 2 equals 5 as well as 4?

    It seems that chapter 2 is just a wrap-up of the account in chapter 1.

    Really? you must have a different translation. Here's Genesis 2 from "the Message" bible:

    5-7 At the time God made Earth and Heaven, before any grasses or shrubs had sprouted from the ground— God hadn't yet sent rain on Earth, nor was there anyone around to work the ground (the whole Earth was watered by underground springs)—God formed Man out of dirt from the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life. The Man came alive—a living soul!
    8-9 Then God planted a garden in Eden, in the east. He put the Man he had just made in it. God madeall kindsof trees grow from the ground, trees beautiful to look at and good to eat. The Tree-of-Life was in the middle of the garden, also the Tree-of-Knowledge-of-Good-and-Evil.
    18-20 God said, "It's not good for the Man to be alone; I'll make him a helper, a companion." So God formed from the dirt of the ground all the animals of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the Man to see what he would name them. Whatever the Man called each living creature, that was its name. The Man named the cattle, named the birds of the air, named the wild animals; but he didn't find a suitable companion.

    (bolding added to highlight the chronological sequence)

    So, it seems the order in Genesis chapter 2 is:

    1) Before any vegetation, man is formed

    2) then all kinds of trees

    3) then all animals and birds

    I don't see anything in chapter 2 indicating that anything was alive before man was created - in fact quite the opposite.

  • Junction-Guy
    Junction-Guy

    Oh well

  • Eyes Open
    Eyes Open

    I wouldn't expect anyone to have all the answers, but I don't think requiring someone believing literally so adamantly in the Judeo God creation stories at the expense of believing what scientific findings show us to know why we have two conflicting accounts in order to provide some credibility is inappropriate.

  • maximumtool
    maximumtool

    JG,

    Your comment that there should be a "disclaimer" that evolution is a theory is exactly what I am talking about when I tell you that you do not have the correct understanding of what evolution even is. What about the theory of gravity? What about the theory of special and general relativity? The word theory, as applied to science, is completely different then what is generally used in every day language.

    A theory is a statement to explain a set of observed facts, it is not a hunch. That is the difference. Evolution should always be explained as a scientific theory, because that is what it is. It is an attempt to explain observed facts.

    And you can see evolution happening all around you. You can watch populations of bacteria evolve new defenses and adapt as a population. Scientists can even predict and control this, and that is how many medical advances are made. You can watch species develop greater capabilities or go extinct due to the competition of other species. How many species have gone extinct simply because man is so successful as a species? Ironically, that "success" could actually end up destroying man, which is an evolutionary twist that has happened millions of times to other species through out history...

    Evolution isnt something that happened, past tense, millions or a billion years ago. It has been happening for hundreds of millions of years just hear on Earth. Do you see the difference?

  • Junction-Guy
    Junction-Guy

    Nope, sorry, just don't believe it.

  • sir82
    sir82
    Nope, sorry, just don't believe it.

    [With fingers in ears] "La-la-la-la! I can't HEAR you! La-la-la-la"

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit