Hahaaaa redvip2000 . . You said scientits !
Sorrrry... im in that kinda mood.
Has all life descended from a common ancestor? Watchtowers view
by DS211 28 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
ctrwtf
What this article doesn't address, and what is probably more meaningful to those inclined to believe in the bible is the fact that Adam and Eve were not the first human pair.
The argument over how many billions of years ago, life emerged, or whether it branched out like a tree is interesting to say the least but not really relevent to their (the WTS) argument. The evidence that humankind existed well before 6000 years ago is immense to say the least. The fact that there were civilizations all over the globe at that time makes the Genesis narrative a mute point.
If Adam and Eve weren't the first human pair, then the concept of original sin is null and void. So then too is the idea of the need of a sacrifice to make things "right" again. The idea of a kingdom of god with his son as ruler, likewise falls. Even if you want to believe in an historical Jesus, his teachings were predicated on a falsehood.
Argue all you want about how the first spark of life occured. The fact is the Genesis account as well as the rest of the Bible is nothing more than a tribal account of mythology. Of course this will never be addressed on a website designed to disinform like JW.org.
-
konceptual99
The lack of attention to the question of human evolution was one of the instrumental factors in my wake up to TTATT. It is actually relatively easy to sound compelling when discussing general creation with someone not versed that well in the detail of evolutioN - which is a surprisingly large proportion of the population I would wager. It is much, much harder to argue for Adam and Eve simply because of the wealth of evidence for the existence of homo sapiens for tens of thousands of years let alone their direct ancestors and cousins.
Next month there is an exhibition opening at the Natural History Museum in London looking at human occupation of the British Isles. They have found new fossils as well as redating existing finds which suggest human occupation of Britain as far back potentially as 800000 to 1 million years ago. By human they are suggesting Homo Heidelbergensis as opposed to Homo Sapien.
There is simply no way of squaring this with the bible.
-
Cadellin
This article is simply one of the two brochures on Creation that were released a few years ago. Like most things published by the WTS on this topic, it is a breathtakingly misleading mixture of snippets of quotes taken out of context and vague and/or just plain erroneous commentary on them. Here's a great example:
For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” 30 The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change
If you read this article in the full, as is easy to do online, you will quickly see that Rose's and Bapteste's comments are made specifically about single-celled organisms. In fact, the article later says that when it comes to multi-cellular, more complex life forms (like cats and rats and elephants--and humans), the multi-branching Tree of Life is still the best way to picture relationships. So why can these two scientists make such seemingly sweeping statements about unicellular life? Because the vast, vast majority of life on this planet is unicellular. Species visible to the human eye are an anomaly, statistically speaking.
Moreover, a close reading of this article actually suggests something exactly opposite to the Genesis account. Rather than implying that various "kinds" (whatever the hell that means) are not related at all, due to separate origins, scientists are finding that unicellular life is often related both vertically and horizontally--that rather than being a Tree of Life, it's more like a tangled Vine of Life, due to various weird strategies like horizontal gene transfer. In fact, in some odd cases, the vine metaphor even extends to multicellular organisms. For instance, we all carry around with us ancient viral DNA.
This grossly inaccurate WTS article is one of the things that really sealed my exit. I took the time to read some (admittedly not all, but enough) of the sources and was shocked by how badly the quotes were taken out of context and the basic ideas of the original material misrepresented.
-
Cadellin
Konceptual: Yes, the fact of human evolution is really incontravertible. To attampt to substantiate all human life as being 6,000 years is in the same boat as trying to justify a 10,000 year old universe, something for which the WTS rather hypocritically castigates "creationists." As one medical doctor said, speaking about the inefficacy of vitamins, "We don't have a question any longer--we now have a conclusive answer." I'm paraphrasing there.
Of course, that doesn't mean that all questions related to human evolution have been answered--not at all. But what IS conclusive is the FACT of human evolution over millions of years. The details will continue to emerge and shift but the foundation is unassailable at this point because of the convergence of diverse and widespread evidence, all pointing to the same thing.
Whew!
-
Finkelstein
The WTS. has always intensionally blocked out information that would potentially ruin the belief in the bible,
including the demeaning pursuit of higher education among its members.
.
Its their own inherent agenda to keep people in state of pliable ignorance to sustain the organization
of which they are the leading directors.
.
In doing so the WTS really ruins the intellectual level and growth of its members to succumb instead
to the regressive ignorance of the bible and of the ancient people who wrote the text within the bible itself.
-
cantleave
For a religion that calls itself "The Truth" its dishonesty is amazing.
-
Vidiot
ctrwtf - "If Adam and Eve weren't the first human pair, then the concept of original sin is null and void. So then too is the idea of the need of a sacrifice to make things 'right' again."
Yup, that's the real problem.
Quotes vs. misquotes, evidence or lack thereof, or "first cause" origin arguments are all academic when compared to the core issue as far as the WT is concerned (or any creationist group, really)...
...if humanity is the product of evolution, then the Genesis creation narrative simply cannot be literal history, therefore any ideology anchored on that premise cannot help but be fundamentally and irrevocably flawed.
And to the WTS, that prospect is completely unacceptable.
-
kaik
As a teen I worked in archeologic sites in Europe. We had find various sites from Ice Age that were 15-25 thousand years old. Human population around 7000 BC was already about 5 mil people and reached 30 mil 3000 years later. Various biomathematic models will clearly eliminate Adam and Eve as the ancestry of present human race originating at 4000 BC.