by distantsun 4 Replies latest watchtower bible
hi sorry for being a pest but i cant find a linkdesigner stubble posted me it is a critical analysys of mistakes in the book is there a creator who care about you , could someone give me the link again or pm it ,thanks
does anyone know why this book is no longer on jw.org or jw.wol ? i still have a physical copy but wondered why its not available online
Doesn't jwfacts.com have this list of errors?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/100539891/Is-There-a-Creator-Who-Cares-About-You
http://www.jwfacts.com/pdf/weighed-wanting-watchtower-origin-of-life.pdf
The 1985 Creation book (Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?) is another epic presentation of false information, receiving similar treatment as the Trinity brochure. Evolutionary theory is mis-represented, Creationists are put forward as Scientists, and Scientists are quoted out of context. At times, a scientific article will state a problem, which the article then addresses with a proposed solution. The Creation book will quote the problem as if is it an unsolved confession from a scientist, such as the quote that follows from Gould and Eldredge, neglecting to advise that the article addresses the problem.
Following are quotations from Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985), along with a comparison to the source. Many have been sourced by Jan Haugland, 2006 Feb 15.
| Creation Book | Original Quote and Comments |
| Page 15 "The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way: "Evolution ... is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."" | James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?", Discover, October 1980, p. 88: "Charles Darwin's brilliant theory of evolution, published in 1859, had a stunning impact on scientific and religious thought and forever changed man's perception of himself. Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.... Most of the debate will center on one key question: Does the three-billion-year-old process of evolution creep at a steady pace, or is it marked by long periods of inactivity punctuated by short bursts of rapid change? Darwin's widely accepted view -- that evolution proceeds steadily, at a crawl -- favors the tortoise. But two paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, are putting their bets on the hare."" |
| Page 20: "In fact now, after more than a century of collecting fossils, "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time," explained the Bulletin." " | "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29. This quote from David Raup is taken out of context, as the paper was not about the fossil record's evidence of common decent, but whether the mechanism of natural selection at the level of species is shown in the fossil record. On page 22, Raup had prefaced his comment with, "We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be." He goes on to state, "Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. … If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent." (p.26) |
| Page 18: Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: "To suppose that the eye ... could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." | Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859, p. 133: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory." |
| Page 39: "At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins' comment in the preface to his book: "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction."" | Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 1976, p.ix: "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliché or not, "stranger than fiction" expresses exactly how I feel about the truth." |
| Page 42: "Richard Dickerson explains: "It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization."" | The quote is from Scientific American, September 1978, p. 75. The purpose and content of the article goes on to address how polymerisation may have occurred. |
| Page 89: "Fossil hunter Donald Johanson acknowledged: "No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like."" | Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, Lucy -- the Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Warner Books, Inc, 1981, p. 286. "No one can be sure what any extinct hominid looked like with its skin and hair on. Sizes here are to scale, with afarensis about two feet shorter than the average human being." |
| Page 143: "Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms "appear to have been carefully and artfully designed." He views them as "the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer." It will be useful to consider some of this evidence." This quote is a shocking twist of the writers intent and vastly changes the meaning of what Lewontin said. | Richard C. Lewontin, "Adaptation", Scientific American, vol. 239, September 1978, p. 213: "The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution.... Life forms are more than simply multiple and diverse, however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the external world in which they live. They have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life. It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. Darwin realized that if a naturalistic theory of evolution was to be successful, it would have to explain the apparent perfection of organisms and not simply their variation." |
| Page 15: "Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble."" The Bible - God's Word or Man's? p.106 describes Hitching as a "scientist" and "authority". He is also quoted in the Watchtower 1994, 1990 and Awake 1994. | Hitching is a favourite for quotes by Creationists. The Creation book quotes his book Neck of the Giraffe 13 times. However, he has no scientific credentials, which he lies about in his book, as discussed at Hitching 12 Fe 2013). He is a paranormalist, and his book Earth Magic describes his belief in pyramid energy, astrology, ESP, dowsing and psychic research. The criticism of evolutionary theory in Neck of the Giraffe is used to advance his own theory regarding paranormal forces directing evolution. He is in no way a credible source, yet the Watchtower uses him as one of their primary sources of information in the Creation book. |
| Pages 36-37: "The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: [...] Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic." | This section of the Creation book is terrible at several levels. First, scientists do not agree with the order of creative days in Genesis. Scientists say the source of light, the sun, was before the earth. Also, science lists the order of animal evolution as fish, reptiles, birds; not fish, birds, reptiles/animals. At least two of the days are out of order. Second, there are two creation stories in Genesis, with the order in Genesis 2 differing from the the order of creation in Genesis 1. The Creation book does not clarify which story it claims Scientists agree with, and science agrees with neither. Third, it cannot be equated to the simple probability of drawing the numbers 1 to 10 from a box. Even the simplest person would assume that the sun and earth were first. The earth is a prerequisites for containing the water, plants and animals. Light and water must precede plants, which die without them. Plants must have been created before animals, birds and fish, whom depend on plants as food. Therefore simple logic will put most of the creative days in the correct order, significantly reducing the chances of an agreement with science to well below one in over 3 million. |
The Creation book was replaced in 2010 by The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking and Was Life Created? These are of similarly poor quality, and the document Weighed and Found Wanting shows how both misrepresent evolution and distort almost every quote included.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/258933/1/untitled-topic
hi thanks for that , i cant get the is there a creator link to work though any tips ? thanks
1998 Is There A Creator Who Cares About You? . Click the link by the blue arrow. http://www.sendspace.com/file/jpb9yi . . Nevada
