Awake! January 2014 - Which 'basic' kind are humans?

by bats in the belfry 41 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  bats in the belfry

  God did not make life in a simple form and allow it to evolve into more complex forms. Instead, he created basic “kinds” of complex plants and animals, which then reproduced “according to their kinds.” ( Genesis 1:11, 21, 24 ) This process, which continues today, has resulted in the earth being filled with the same “kinds” of life that God originally created.

  The Bible does not specify how much variation can occur within a kind, as might result when animals within a kind interbreed and adapt to their environment. While some view such adaptations as a form of evolution, no new kind of life is produced. Modern research supports the idea that the basic categories of plants and animals have changed little over vast periods of time.

  The Bible’s scientific accuracy in describing basic “kinds” of life strengthens its credibility in other areas, including history and prophecy.

  ---

  Basic ... yet they are complex ? ..... Who are they taking for a ride here?

  And what do basic “kinds” have in common with WTBTS credibility of history and prophecy?
• 

  Captain Obvious

  What the hell is a "kind?" What about when different members of a "kind" are so different that they can no longer interbreed? Yes, that's right... Speciation.

  Humans are Great Apes... Next question.
• 

  sir82

  Typical JW rhetoric...use a term without definition (what exactly is a "kind"?) and then proceed in the argument as if that term was rigidly defined and accepted.

  To a JW who is not only trained not to think, but is threatened with severe punishment if he does, this style of argumentation seems to work well.
• 

  braincleaned

  They use the word 'kind' because they can't use species or genome. Science would have a field day if they did. They need to "dumb down" for the R&F.
• 

  Terry

  If you leave something GENERAL enough, anything can be true.

  Once you get into specifics, however, the distinctions and differences pop out like a nip slip!

  For example, if you say: "Christians believe such and so. . ." you can get away with GENERAL comments.

  If, however, you say: "Seventh day Adventists believe so and so. . ." suddenly that huge group of generality Christians no long fit the description.

  Genus and differentia, as described by Aristotle in the early in the 4th century b.c.e., laid the framework for a GENERAL understanding

  the Old Testament calls "KINDS."

  
• 

  undercover

  Modern research supports the idea that the basic categories of plants and animals have changed little over vast periods of time.

  Is that a direct quote?

  That sentance alone torpedoes their belief in the flood story. To believe in a world wide flood 4000 years ago, one has to accept that animals, and humans as well, have changed drastically over 4000 years. Much more quickly than any modern research indicates it takes life to evolve, or as the WTS wants to put it, 'adapt'.

  Remember, the WTS uses the word 'kind' when talking about how many animals were on the ark. There were two (or seven, depending on which verse you're reading) of every 'kind'... so they're were two canines, not two of every type of breed of dog. And from that 'kind', the canine, came all the types of wolves, coyotes, dogs, dingos, etc that populate the planet today. And this all happened in just 4000 years. Yet, above they accept that "the basic categories of animals have changed little over vast periods of time"
• 

  DATA-DOG

  As people like to point out, we must consider the original audiance of the writings that became the bible. What would anyone back then know about genomes? If you told Abraham to go and find you 5 different kinds of snakes, then that is what he would do. If he brought you those snakes then it is possible that each "kind" came from a completely different original kind, the did not neccessarily all come from 1 original "kind." One thing to consider is that many of the "original" kinds are long gone, and we have no idea how many of those went extinct, leaving no fossil record at all.

  I also imagine that it won't be too long before the WT has to admit that "evolution" by the strict dictionary definition is a reality.

  DD
• 

  undercover

  I also imagine that it won't be too long before the WT has to admit that "evolution" by the strict dictionary definition is a reality.

  You may have hit on something there. The WTS never drops a bomb like change in doctrine. They set it up with subtle changes, such as redefining words and phrases. Doesn't matter that it has no basis in real life or fact, but in dubland, if you control the information, you can make the people believe whatever you want.

  With this confusing, somewhat contradictory statement, they may be setting up a slow change in how they define 'evolution' and how they can slowly convince their followers that belief in 'evolution' is consistent with their doctrines. It's not an overnight thing. It'll take a couple years or more.

  We should keep an 'evolution watch' on em and see what they print over the next couple of years. Naw... I've gotta life. Don't really care that much...
• 

  thomasaquinas

  I find many JWs un"kind".
• 

  sir82

  While some view such adaptations as a form of evolution

  This seems to be a pretty significant concession. I.e., "we don't call it evolution, but others do". It's not such a big leap from that point to "evolution is at least partially true".

  Fits in with their MO of gradually introducing ideas that would, if sudddenly changed, cause massive cognitive dissonance.

  That sentance alone torpedoes their belief in the flood story. To believe in a world wide flood 4000 years ago, one has to accept that animals, and humans as well, have changed drastically over 4000 years. Much more quickly than any modern research indicates it takes life to evolve, or as the WTS wants to put it, 'adapt'.

  Further evidence that no one in the Writing Department seems capable of holding a coherent thought for more than 15 seconds. They don't think through the consequences of what they publish.

  They seem to be rather like the proverbial goldfish with the 3-second memory, incapable of realizing they are swimming round and round and round the fish bowl.