Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!

by Seeker4 178 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Sad emo
    Sad emo

    Hi Seeker4

    I'm just starting to look at the bigger evolution debate. At the moment, my stance is that I believe in micro-evolution (adaptation within species) but not macro-evolution (adaptation of one species into another). I don't feel the need to believe in the literal Genesis creation account (ie my faith wouldn't depend solely on it being literally true), but I do believe that the 'creation' sequence is recorded in the correct order and that God was the starter and creator.

    All the evolution theories focus on the monkey-human model but I wanted to ask what your (and other evolutionists?) views are on the similarity between the human and pig genomes. Apparently, pig genomes are a perfect match to the human genome - just in the wrong order.

    I was first introduced to the possibility that the pig has a closer genetic makeup to humans about 12 years ago, and now a lot of research is being done in genetics to make pig organs more suitable for transplant into humans (pig hearts have been used before with limited success). It has always puzzled me why, if the chimp is our closest genetic relative, why aren't we trialing transplants using chimp organs rather than pigs? Why would it not be easier to genetically modify chimp genes?

    I don't usually venture onto the evolution threads so be nice to me!!!

  • tall penguin
    tall penguin

    With all due respect Apostate Kate, I don't see the relevance of posting a list of people who believe in creation. How does this make your belief more accurate?

    tall penguin

  • skyking

    Sad emo you sound like a very intelligent person. I waiver towards your line of thinking but then I have to ask, how can such a highly intelligent God come from nothing? What you believe is actually more improvable than the evolutionist because it took billions of years of evolution to create us. But an All intelligent GOD sprang into existence instantly, is far more of an impossibility. It could not have happened so it is more improbable than evolution.

    Can you tell me how you get around this? Because I can't and would love to be able. I would love to believe in GOD but the above question is bigger for Creationist like your self than for evolution.

    If Sad emo will not answer me, is there some one on this board that can answer this, please.

  • PrimateDave

    There is a BIG difference between belief in a divine being or beings (Christianity isn't alone in this world, you know), the existence of which can neither be proved or disproved objectively, and a belief in the literal/semi-literal interpretation of the Creation Account per Genesis chapters 1 and 2.

    Had you read the information in Seeker4's posted link to the NY Times you might have read the following:

    "One issue cannot be entirely sidestepped in any public presentation of human evolution: that many people in this country doubt and vocally oppose the very concept. In a corner of the hall, several scientists are shown in video interviews professing the compatibility of their evolution research with their religious beliefs."

    Apparently, many people can accept a scientific explanation for human origins and believe in a god without having to fit the evidence to some old scrolls written by tribal poets.

    Why is it so necessary for the professionals that you cite to accept the BIBLICAL account of creation? Surely, they can just believe in a god of their choice, can't they? After all, who's to say that Vishnu isn't the almighty God?

    From the Wikipedia: "The Vishnu Sahasranama[1] describes Vishnu as the All-Pervading essence of all beings, the master of and beyond the past, present and future, the creator and destroyer of all existences, one who supports, sustains and governs the Universe and originates and develops all elements within." It must be true! It says so in the Wikipedia!!!

    Your signs of cult thinking do not apply here. Seeker4 and others DO NOT FORCE anyone to accept their ideas. If anything, we encourage everyone to look at all the information with an open mind and see how it applies in the real world. We practice neither shunning nor excommunications. Thank you.


  • RAF

    Every therory is interesting ... but not a proof ... even experts do not always agree with each other (so when it comes to use any name to prove anything since there is no proof ... Well )

    You can talk about evolution from one point (to make it plausible - it will - but then you still have to deal with missing links)
    but more over when you come back to the start, what makes it weird to accept is the "hasard" means self auto developpement and interaction if that was the case (and you know for instance how in a few years a jungle can appear in your garden if you don't take care of it - and how fast viruses can mutate) if from the start that was the case on everything ... The effect of this kind of developpement would be exponential after billions of years and even millions of years and even thousand of years if not only hundred years - we would have to deal with so much more old stuffs with would have evolved and mutate and new stuffs) ... I mean what we can see is that there is a restriction in evotution/mutation and also a restriction by spiecies (that's where the missing link is the well known argument). There is something very clever which limits the effect of evolution/mutation ... call it what you want ... I call it the spirit of GOD in short GOD.

  • Asheron

    Apostate Kate,

    You seem to have more Dr's. on your list than we do so it is settled. ATTENTION ALL GODLESS ONES. Evolution is wrong and Apostate Kate and the Bible are correct!

    Way to go Kate!!!!! Imagine, just that easy.

    Where do I sign up for the singing and praying and such?

  • Balsam

    I went to school the 60's and they taught evolution but we didn't know what we know now, and honestly I didn't understand and basically ignored it. But I can't say I believed the origin of mankind according to the the genesis account as being historically accurate either. Then I met JW's studies and basically just accepted their perspective without investigating it or even caring about it really.

    Ok now fast forward to today. I have just started examining the idea of Evolution and have watched many programs on the science channel and learned what it actually is. Then I saw a program on Darwin and his perspective and though ok. But then if we jump back to the so called biblical account we absolutely have nothing factual for a time element and the story is one about mankinds beginning perspectives of God and that there is a God. Why do we need to look at the biblical myth story and try to turn it into a literal, historical account rather than as it was that Man began to look for God. The creative days we know are not our actual 24 hr days we know today and is symbolic. Why can't a scientist have a belief in God and biblical appreciative of the attitude and still believe in evolution. Personally I see no conflict. Because the bible is myth stories of man's experience with their God.

    Oh well what do I know, I'm still trying to sort it all out. But Evolution makes more sense and has proof. Biblical story does not need proof to inspire faith.

  • Sad emo
    Sad emo

    Hi skyking

    how can such a highly intelligent God come from nothing?

    He didn't. God just IS - no beginning, no end. I could go on the counter argument, how did everything we see come from nothing?

    Let me try an idea out on you which I've discussed with another ex-JW:

    What is your definition of 'eternal'? Don't look up a dictionary definition, just put what comes into you mind as an answer.

    What you believe is actually more improvable than the evolutionist because it took billions of years of evolution to create us.

    Within the Genesis account, man was the last to be created. As I said in my previous post, I don't feel the need to hold to the literal account - so even in my view, yes it could have been billions of years before man was put on earth (I think I'm classed as an 'old earth' creationist maybe?). On this basis I don't think either is more unprovable than the other - no firm proof for either theory and we weren't there!

  • skyking

    Just as I thought every time I ask this paradox not one Creationist is willing to answer it. If some one would answer this for me I would be indebted to them for life. Plus if believing in GOD is a requirement for the resurrection the person that answers this for me will save my eternal soul.

    Is there not anyone willing to save my soul?

  • Sad emo
    Sad emo


Share this