JAN 2015 Awake - Yet More Fallacies and Disingenuous Statements re Evolution/Creation

by konceptual99 35 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • konceptual99
    konceptual99

    So the new Awake is up.

    First question....

    "How Did Life Begin?

    How would you complete the following sentance?

    LIFE IS THE RESULT OF....

    A. EVOLUTION

    B. CREATION"

    err.... neither.

    Apparently the Bible is not anti-science....

    "For example, the Bible does not support creationism. It does not state that the earth was created in six literal 24-hour days"

    err.... yet another repetition of the mantra that JWs are not creationists. Despite believing in creation.

    What is it with these people? Everytime they have a chance to answer the critics, respond to the repeated exposures of disingenuous statements they jsut repeat it again. Why can they not be open, transparent? Admit they are OLD EARTH creationists? Be clear that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life? Be clear that they do accept that a certain amount of evolution has, and continues to, happen?

    Instead we get yet another dismal treatment of the subject. I think they realised a long time ago that they will never convince anyone who can see past the smokescreen and so they just use enough emotion and pseudo-science to appeal to the gullible and those too indoctrinated to see the light.

  • designs
    designs

    They're walking a tight rope. Many Denominations threw the towel in on Genesis and call it an Allegory, not the Wt..

  • Listener
    Listener

    I'm trying to get to the bottom of this idea that they do not believe in creationism.

    This is from the Watchtower 86 9/1

    Questions From Readers

    ▪ Is there a distinction between “creation” and “creationism”?

    Yes, there is. The word “creation,” appearing some 18 times in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, properly refers to Jehovah’s creative activity. (See, for example, Romans 1:20; 8:21; 2 Corinthians 5:17) The term “creationism” is not found in the Bible.

    Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1971) defines “creation” as “the act of creating,” and “creationism” as “a doctrine or theory of creation.” The same dictionary defines “ism” as “a distinctive doctrine, cause, system, or theory—often used disparagingly.”

    In these 1980’s, “creationism” has become a true “ism” because of its adoption by political pressure groups, such as the Moral Majority. It is no longer a neutral term, but embodies extreme fundamentalist views of the Bible, such as the view that God created the earth and everything upon it in six days of 24 hours each. There are now more than 350 books in circulation setting out such “creationism” dogma. Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the unreasonable theories of “creationism” in favor of what the Bible really teaches about “creation.”

    For a more complete answer to the above question, please see the article entitled “Evolution, Creation, or Creationism—Which Do You Believe?” on pages 12-15 of our companion magazine Awake! dated March 22, 1983.

    This is the Awake article that they refer to

    Flaws in “Scientific Creationism”

    From the testimony given in the trial, it is manifest that the scientific evidence for creation was not really presented in clear confrontation with evolution. Instead, it was lost to sight in clashes over side issues, particularly two tenets of creationism that had been written into the law:

    1. That creation took place only a few thousand years ago.

    2. That all geologic strata were formed by the Biblical Deluge.

    Neither of these dogmas is really crucial to the central question of whether living things were created or not. They are merely doctrines held by the members of a few churches, notably the Seventh-Day Adventists, who form the core of the group that sponsored the law. When these sectarian beliefs were written into the law as something that must be taught in public schools, that law was foredoomed to be declared unconstitutional.

    Wikipedia has this to say about Scientific Creationism

    Creation science or scientific creationism [1] is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove or reinterpret the scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution. [2] [3] ... The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in "creation ex nihilo" (Latin: out of nothing); the conviction that the Earth was created within the last 6,000–10,000 years...

    So the clowns in the writing department, in their haste to discredit others beliefs, have decided that they will deny creationism (in it's true definition) whereas in reality they simply do not believe in the creationism branch of Scientific Creationism.

  • Pistoff
    Pistoff

    As with so many other things the WT teaches, they are uncomfortable with the company they keep; they shun, but don't call it that.

    They believe in creation and literal Genesis, but separate themselves from YEC's, even though they have borrowed from their books.

    They are old person who looks around in the nursing home and says, I don't want to be here with all these old people.

  • breakfast of champions
    breakfast of champions

    For example, the Bible does not support creationism. It does not state that the earth was created in six literal 24-hour days

    It doesn't say it wasn't six literal 24 hour days either. . . . How do we know one reading is false and the other true?

    This magazine sounds awful.

  • Heaven
    Heaven

    These clowns keep asking the same questions over and over again. Does their membership not get it the first time around?

  • punkofnice
    punkofnice

    "For example, the Bible does not support creationism. It does not state that the earth was created in six literal 24-hour days"

    God is useless at communicating or doesn't exist.....hmmmmmmmmm.

    Evolution as I understand it, doesn't deal with how life began but how it developed (I think).

    The WBT$ reminds me of some daft lazy slob that sits at home in an armchair and thinks he's right about stuff without any evidence...just because he heard something somewhere on some dumb TV show or gutter press.

    The WBT$ are just beyond dishonest.

  • sir82
    sir82

    The same science that disproves that the earth is only 6000 years old, also disproves that 100% of the earth's surface was under water for a full year just 4400 years ago.

    Idiots.

  • Master_Bob
    Master_Bob

    New creationist Awake 1/15, again...

    And this time except of plain scientific ignorance, it's full of gross logical errors.

    Consider the phrace from the 1st paragraph of the 2nd article:

    "...they [scientists] still cannot define with certainty just what life is. A wide gulf separates nonliving matter from even the simplest living cell."

    If there is such a big gulf between nonliving matter and simplest form of life, why can't this "gulf" be the "certain" definition of life? Two sentences, side by side, contradicting each other so much...

    They also mention two scientists to support their position. One of them is Rama Singh. From my short research I found out he is a real scientist and of course he supports evolution. The other one is the entomologist named Gerard. Really? Gerard? Like Bob or Daniel? Apparently it was not only his scientific insight on entomology that convinced him about the falsehood of evolution, but rather the Bible book, where "he found satisfying answers to questions about mankind’s past". Well done on giving up the scientific methodology Mr. Gerard whatever.

    The magazine if full of ignorance and misrepresentation of the theory of evolution that is obvious to anyone with little education on the subject, but I want to stand on only one point. The textbox "Did You Know?" contains pure lie. It says

    "THE BIBLE IS NOT ANTISCIENCE. ...While the Bible is not a science textbook, it is consistent with scientific fact. For example, the Bible does not support creationism. It does not state that the earth was created in six literal 24-hour days. The term “day” as used in Genesis applies to periods of considerable length. *"

    Really? JW are not creationists? Come on dudes.. The creation days were not 24-hour, but they where 7000 years, yes? Oh, it make so much more sense! And it really don't contradict science. Like the global flood doesn't. Or the pyramids being built after 2000 BC, or innumerable other JW nonsense... How many of the thankful jws will notice the contradiction I mentioned in the beginning, or any other stupidities written here? Can't believe I was going to peoples doors with this bullshit...

  • Master_Bob
    Master_Bob

    Listener I like much more the article in the issue of March 8, 1983, named "Creationism—Is It Scientific?"

    Descussing the same trial it states:

    "Geologists can point to their measurements of geologic processes that extend far beyond that narrow time frame. Ocean sediments have accumulated over far more than 10,000 years. The time to build mountains and wear them down is measured in millions of years. For continents to drift apart and form oceans takes hundreds of millions of years. To say that all of this goes back only 10,000 years is simply absurd in the eyes of geologists."

    That's really useful to know borg, thank you for your courage to accept some scientific facts here. Because this stuff really contradicts what YOU teach about the deluge causing continental shift and the rise of mountains. But I guess this doesn't matter much when you have an army of brainwashed sheeps to command.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit