How does the WTS view 'ancient humans' (i.e. fossils assigned to the genus Homo)?

by LoveUniHateExams 13 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • LoveUniHateExams

    Having read I Love TTATT's thread about evidence for humans living more than 6,000 years ago, I responded by using Neanderthals and Homo ergaster as evidence.

    This got me thinking about the WT's current view on 'cavemen' (), etc.

    So, how does the WTS view 'ancient humans'?

  • Mephis
    They use selective quotations to imply that they're 'just' humans. They don't really address the DNA evidence from what I've seen. And of course, the Denisovan evidence is fairly recent so hasn't had to be addressed. Effectively they try to blur and misrepresent the evidence rather than deal with the real arguments. "These aren't ape men - look a scientist said so!". But crickets on the issue of how Neanderthals diverged from the common ancestor of anatomically modern humans.
  • StarTrekAngel

    They were the consequence of evil men that had sex with child... I mean, monkeys!, had sex with monkeys, I said.

    Just being sarcastic!

  • OnTheWayOut

    I will try to answer off the top of my head, and I hope it's close enough. They currently say very little about the subject as newer and newer evidence pours in. They lean on their old understandings and misconceptions that carbon dating is wrong because of the flood, DNA is real but only proves how marvelous Jehovah is while using it for backtracking anything is just 'theory,' there is only a small amount (about enough to fill a large coffin or footlocker) of actual fossils that reflect creatures that were not quite like modern humans. They said that science is driven by the need for funding and archaeology is full of nonsense theories and hoaxes and that the scant fossil evidence is largely from a few deformed or inbred human beings who are not millions of years old but miscalculated (because of the flood again), while the vast majority of normal fossils are simply ignored.

    If they have any updates to this, I would be surprised. Even the Pope is backing down on this in the face of overwhelming new evidences and how well the Human Genome Project is filling in the blanks.

  • Splash

    A fossil does not indicate that they were hairy.

    'nuff said.

  • LoveUniHateExams

    They use selective quotations to imply that they're 'just' humans - selective quoting seems to be their MO.

    They currently say very little about the subject as newer and newer evidence pours in - indeed, such evidence blows a literal reading of Genesis out of the water.

    there is only a small amount (about enough to fill a large coffin or footlocker) of actual fossils - I actually believed this when I first started uni. Until I borrowed a book on human evolution from the library. There's tons of evidence.

    I'm surprised this subject isn't brought up more with JWs - I mean, how would they even begin to reconcile it with their faith?! Does the ransom sacrifice extend to archaic humans? Will 'right-hearted' Neanderthals be resurrected? Etc.

  • Vidiot

    It's funny.

    Back in the 90s, there was even an Awake article specifically called "'Ape Men' - What Were They?"

    It bent over backwards to include all the things Mephis listed and more, denouncing (and misrepresenting) evolution with extreme prejudice, strongly "encouraging" dutiful JWs to simply not think about it (and serve the Org more), and most significantly, not even actually attempting to answer the question posed in the title.

    Hell, I noticed all this when I read the article as it came out, and I was still in way back then. Needless to say, it pinged my "wait-a-minute" detector, and I never forgot it.

  • konceptual99
    Heard a very funny thing just last night about this. Saw some friends who have faded. They have relatives (both in and out) who are really into personal training. They were talking to the relative who is in about diet and this person follows a Paleolithic diet - i.e. one based on foods that can be foraged and excludes foods that only became available after farming was introduced. The observation was made that it seemed an odd diet to follow since this person could not even believe in Paleolithic man given they believed in the creation of man 6000 years ago. The result? One slightly stumped Witness.
  • konceptual99

    Incidentally, this subject was one of the reasons for my waking up. The organisation had made it clear that they did not poo poo the idea of an earth that was billions of years old in a universe that was around 13 billion years old. This made it easier in some of the awkward conversations about creation I had.

    What I was increasingly frustrated about was the lack of proper answers rebutting the large number of claims being made by anthropologists for the development of humans. Articles like the one about ape-men were simply white-washes of the subject. Nothing had been published for ages. They bought out the couple of brochures on creation but ignored the subject of human development.

    It was clear to me that the organisation did not have a rebuttal. They had zero information to build a credible defence of a claim that man was created 6000 years ago. So they were ignoring it.

    When I challenged friends about it they simply said to wait on Jehovah. To me it became nothing about waiting on Jehovah and simply about putting our collective hands over our ears and shouting "we can't hear you" at the scientists.

  • OneEyedJoe

    The JWs don't have a view on ancient humans because they close their eyes.

    There are none so blind as those who refuses to see.

Share this