DNA and Man's origin

by D wiltshire 126 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  D wiltshire

  I think as time goes on and DNA gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental Christians to defend thier position against Evolution. Kind of like the Catholic church going against Galileio saying the "Earth is not the center of the Universe".

  "Eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.

  Don't get me wrong I beleive there is a God, and I think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, I even feel the first 2 chapter of Genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.

  Eventually the WT is going to have to change its understanding of Genesis to even stay credible.
• 

  cornish

  I have come to the same conclusion as you,I believe that evolution was the way that creation happened so to speak, but this does not mean I am athiest.

  That is how the Church of England officially sees the Genesis account,and has done for some time as far as I know, just as you describe and I remember how I used to mock their viewpoint.
• 

  SYN

  Hi D Wiltshire, I like your profile pic, the Mandelbrot set has always been a favourite of mine. I've spent hours & hours flying through it...ah my salad days

  You make some good points. The Tower is constantly having to change what it says in order to remain credible. This is because very little, if anything of what it says is credible in the first place!
• 

  D wiltshire

  Cornish,

  The way I see it God made the natural laws that make existense possible. And with a little proding from his Holy Spirit as mentioned on the first creative day would unleash the whole sequence of events that followed on all 6 creative days.

  Why some hold stubornly to six 24 hour days when the Hebrew word translated "day" can mean an undetermined lenght of time, makes no sense what so ever. Clearly this holding on to such an interpitation undermines their credibility and does more harm than good.

  The problem many have with Genesis is that they think everytime God does something it has to be done by means of an instantaneous miracle. They fail to see that God's making of precise natural laws is also a display of his creative ability. The holding of these laws in place is a continuos miracle that is responsible for evolution to take place.
• 

  D wiltshire

  Syn,

  Do you think that soon perhaps they may change their understanding of Genesis to save face?
• 

  Realist

  "Eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.

  the evidence is so overwhelming already that it is amazing to me that people still deny evolution. its like with the believe in the WTBS...it doesn't matter how much evidence you present...some people will always fall for nonsense.
• 

  Elsewhere

  Why some hold stubornly to six 24 hour days when the Hebrew word translated "day" can mean an undetermined lenght of time, makes no sense what so ever

  At the end of each creative day, the bible says:

  • And there was evening and there was morning, one day
  • And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
  • And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
  • And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
  • And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
  • And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day

  Since it says "And there was evening and there was morning" it is easy to understand why people conclude that the bible is referring to a literal day.

  I think the writer of the Genesis account fully intended for the days to be interpreted as literal days.

  I also think that the Genesis account is nothing more than mythology that was plagiarized by a desert nomad thousands of years ago.
• 

  D wiltshire

  Elsewhere,

  I see what you are saying, it does seem like 24 hours days are being spoken of since evening and mourning are being mentioned.

  But since the basic order is right as to the creation account and what archeaologist have uncovered I tend to expect that Genesis is not speaking of 24 hour days.
• 

  funkyderek

  But since the basic order is right as to the creation account and what archeaologist have uncovered I tend to expect that Genesis is not speaking of 24 hour days.

  The basic order isn't right. God created light and darkness on the first day (in itself suggesting a literal interpretation was intended), but didn't create the sun until the fourth day. The account suggests that the sky is a watery "expanse" and claims that all water-dwelling creatures and all flying creaturesd were created before land-dwelling creatures. This does not square up with the findings of modern science. On the sixth day, God creates man directly, again not supported by modern science.

  And Genesis, like it or not, does appear to be speaking about literal 24-hour days. The following study note from the NET Bible is interesting:

  snThe first day. The exegetical evidence suggests the word "day" in this chapter refers to a literal twenty-four hour day. It is true that the word can refer to a longer period of time (see Isa 61:2, or the idiom in 2:4, "in the day," that is, "when"). But this chapter uses "day," "night," "morning," "evening," "years," and "seasons." Consistency would require sorting out how all these terms could be used to express ages. Also, when the Hebrew word yom ( <oy ) is used with a numerical adjective, it refers to a literal day. Furthermore, the commandment to keep the sabbath clearly favors this interpretation. One is to work for six days and then rest on the seventh, just as God did when he worked at creation.
• 

  hooberus

  Actually DNA studies are very compatible with creationism. If you'd like more info, e-mail me.