Posts by Disillusioned JW

49

Early Hominem. Neanderthals. Evolution.

by solameguy12 in

so i grew up as a witness but i’m no longer active, i have some family that still practices very seriously.

but i don’t want to ask them my question.

but what does the bible and teaching’s of jw’s say about early hominids?

Disillusioned JW

On page two of this topic thread Sea Breeze said "Javaman or Homo Erectus was a Gibbon monkey skull". There is at least one big problem with that claim. It is that Gibbon species is an ape species (what is called a Lessor Ape) not a monkey species! [However I admit that some countries the vernacular meaning of the word "monkey" includes what scientists say is an ape instead.] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbon says the following. "Gibbons (/ˈɡɪbənz/) are apes in the family Hylobatidae (/ˌhaɪləˈbætɪdiː/). ... Also called the lesser apes, gibbons differ from great apes (bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and humans) in being smaller, exhibiting low sexual dimorphism, and not making nests.[5] Like all apes, gibbons are tailless." While that source says that humans are apes, not all scientists classify humans as apes, but some began doing classifying them as apes several years ago.

Regarding the claim made by Sea Breeze and some other young Earth creationists that Java Man was a gibbon and that Eugène Dubois later confessed it was a hoax, see https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/gibbon.html which proves those two claims of some creationists (including of Sea Breeze) as false!

Young Earth creationists often spread lies against evolution and I am sick and tired of them doing so. Granted some of them (including Sea Breeze) are sincere, but what they are sometimes spreading are nonetheless lies originated by others. Those 'damn' (figuratively speaking) lies deceive many people into rejecting evolution!

See also https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/if-humans-evolved-from-apes-why-do-apes-exist-today/ . It is a young Earth creationist article which says creationists should not argue "If Humans Evolved from Apes, Why Do Apes Exist Today?" The reasons it gives are correct ones! Some of the things the article say are the following.

"This argument shows a misunderstanding of what evolutionists actually believe about human evolution. The evolutionary concept of the origin of humans is not based on humans descending from modern apes but, rather, argues that humans and modern apes share a common ancestor.

According to the evolutionary worldview, several million years ago there existed a group of creatures that would ultimately give rise to both modern apes and modern humans. At some point, a small group of creatures became reproductively isolated from the main group. These two groups then followed different evolutionary pathways, resulting in the modern apes and modern humans. So, in reality, there is nothing about the existence of modern apes that would trouble an evolutionist. In fact, raising this issue only shows a lack of understanding on the part of those believing that the existence of modern apes is a stumbling block for evolution. This argument also seems to imply that creationists are deliberately committing a straw-man fallacy (misrepresentation of an opponent’s position), but in reality, creationists who use this argument simply misunderstand what evolutionists believe."

49

Early Hominem. Neanderthals. Evolution.

by solameguy12 in

so i grew up as a witness but i’m no longer active, i have some family that still practices very seriously.

but i don’t want to ask them my question.

but what does the bible and teaching’s of jw’s say about early hominids?

Disillusioned JW

Thanks peacefulpete.

Regarding Bonobos (formerly commonly known as Pygmy Chimpanzee) [with scientific species name of Pan paniscus] I didn't know there were any who argue they are a subspecies, though I know some classify them as chimpanzees. Are they arguing they are a subspecies of the Common Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)? In looking up the spelling of scientific names a moment ago I found an article at https://www.britannica.com/animal/bonobo which says the following. "bonobo, (Pan paniscus), also called pygmy chimpanzee, ape that was regarded as a subspecies of the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) until 1933, when it was first classified separately."

49

Early Hominem. Neanderthals. Evolution.

by solameguy12 in

so i grew up as a witness but i’m no longer active, i have some family that still practices very seriously.

but i don’t want to ask them my question.

but what does the bible and teaching’s of jw’s say about early hominids?

Disillusioned JW

peacefulpete I appreciate your posts. Though I am convinced of human evolution there is something which troubles me about the science pertaining to it. My stating the concern might give Sea Breeze some consolation, but I will state it anyway.

One thing that greatly annoys(and troubles) me regarding evolutionary science (including physical anthropology) is that every chart I come across of human evolution disagrees with every other chart of such to some degree! When the charts have lines connecting species they show different ancestor-descendant relationships. For example, older charts showed Homo sapiens having Homo erectus as their most recent ancestor, but the chart posted you shows Homo erectus as not being our ancestor at all. The chart posted by you shows Homo heidebergensis as our most recent ancestor, but a number of other charts show that species as not leading to us. Some science articles said that Homo heidebergensis is not a separate species but rather a variant of Homo erectus, whereas other science articles said that Homo heidebergensis is a variant of early Homo sapiens. Likewise some science articles don't consider Homo ergaster as being a separate species, but rather as an early form of Homo erectus. Some scientists assign certain fossils to one species, but a different scientist assigns them to a different species, and a third scientist to neither of the other two species, but instead to a different one.

Some scientists say that the Neanderthals have Homo erectus as their most recent ancestor, but the chart posted by you doesn't depict that - unless we interpret that which some call Homo heidebergensis as actually being a variant of Homo erectus.

The fossil skull labeled/cataloged KNM-ER 1470 is assigned to Homo habilis by some, to Homo rudolfensis by some, to Kenyanthropus rudolfensis by some, to the genus Australopithecus by others, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rudolfensis says the following about Homo rudolfensis. "Consequently, both its generic classification and validity are debated without any wide consensus, with some recommending the species to actually belong to the genus Australopithecus as A. rudolfensis or Kenyanthropus as K. rudolfensis, or that it is synonymous with the contemporaneous and anatomically similar H. habilis."

The chart posted by you depicts Homo floresiensis as descending from Homo erectus and some scientists say it descended (as a dwarf) from such, but other scientists say it definitely did not descend from such and not a dwarf species, and that its limb proportions (arms relative to legs) is much more like that of Homo habilis and of Australopithecus afarensis. Regarding Homo floresiensis https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/homo-floresiensis-making-sense-of-the-small-91387735/ says the following.

"A second model advanced to explain the presence of the hominin fossils on the island of Flores in the Pleistocene states that this population was the offshoot of a more primitive, pre-erectus hominin species with a small body size and small brain. Evidence from the mandible and the rest of the skeleton supports this hypothesis (Argue et al., 2009). The size and morphology of the teeth and mandible share more resemblances to Australopithecus and the earliest Homo species than to Homo erectus (Brown and Maeda, 2009). In particular, the very short legs (relative both to the arms and to the feet) are a pattern seen in apes and australopiths rather than Homo erectus (a good Homo habilis skeletal comparison has not yet been discovered). LB1 was also disproportionately heavy for her height — a pattern closely approximated by the famous 3.2 million year old Australopithecus afarensis skeleton of "Lucy" (Jungers and Baab, 2009). Despite being only 106 cm in height, LB1 is estimated to have weighed close to 32.5 kg (71.7 lbs.). The carpal bones (bones of the wrist) in Homo floresiensis look more like those of chimpanzees than of modern humans (Tocheri et al., 2007). While the evolution of the wrist is not well documented in early members of the genus Homo (e.g., Homo habilis and Homo erectus), it is clear that the wrist morphology is more primitive than that of modern humans and Neanderthals. Like the wrist, the foot morphology, although exhibiting some human-like traits (including a non-grasping big toe), also retains several quite primitive features: a long forefoot with curved toes and the lack of a medial longitudinal arch (Jungers et al., 2009)."

28

Jesus as 'The mighty + almighty God'

by JW Answers in

jehovah's witnesses refuse to believe that jesus is the almighty god.

they would state that jesus is 'mighty', but not almighty.. below is a 30 minute video proving from the word of god that the lord jesus christ is both mighty and almighty, separate from the father but equal too.. the verses used from scripture show without a doubt that christ is mighty (isaiah 9:6) and almighty (rev 1:7-8)..

Disillusioned JW

Correction: I meant to say "propositions" instead of "prepositions".

28

Jesus as 'The mighty + almighty God'

by JW Answers in

jehovah's witnesses refuse to believe that jesus is the almighty god.

they would state that jesus is 'mighty', but not almighty.. below is a 30 minute video proving from the word of god that the lord jesus christ is both mighty and almighty, separate from the father but equal too.. the verses used from scripture show without a doubt that christ is mighty (isaiah 9:6) and almighty (rev 1:7-8)..

Disillusioned JW

slimboyfat, I realize that the following is the case. "Plantinga’s argument isn’t against the reliability of our senses. It is an argument against the reliability of our senses given that naturalism is true."

Regarding science relying on basic assumptions that cannot be proved by science, even mathematics (in regards to its axioms) and the branch of philosophy known as formal logic (in regards to to prepositions) rely upon assumptions. There is no way to avoid that. But the assumptions of mathematics are consistent with our experiences and when the assumptions of science and of logical arguments are continually consistent with our experiences we have no reason to discard them.

Regarding the hypersensitivity to threat, the inaccurate picture of reality it sometimes creates only lasts for a brief moment. Those of us who try to be very rational question more readily, than others, the picture of reality which the hypersensitivity to threat triggered.

28

Jesus as 'The mighty + almighty God'

by JW Answers in

jehovah's witnesses refuse to believe that jesus is the almighty god.

they would state that jesus is 'mighty', but not almighty.. below is a 30 minute video proving from the word of god that the lord jesus christ is both mighty and almighty, separate from the father but equal too.. the verses used from scripture show without a doubt that christ is mighty (isaiah 9:6) and almighty (rev 1:7-8)..

Disillusioned JW

Hello slimboyfat. Thanks for answering my question. To me the argument used by Plantinga’s (in regards to our mind) and Sea Breeze and some others against naturalism is problematic and/or a paradox, since we can't use logic to argue that we can't know for sure if any of our ideas about logic are correct. It wold be a contradiction to attempt to do such. [We could test one idea about logic with another idea of logic, such as by doing a science experiment, but how could test logically all ideas of logic by logic?] Instead we have to accept as a given that by some means we are able to discern correct rules of logic, regardless of whether a god/God exists and regardless of whether we believe/think a god/God exists. [Sea Breeze in a different topic thread said the following. "By the way, If you are a product of random mutations over billions or years, how could you be sure of what logic even is? Whey would it be the same in England as it is Hawaii? Why even ackknowledge known laws of logic if they are arbitrary."]

Your words of "If that is so, then we have no basis for trusting our senses and our mind to reflect reality truthfully" remind me something a philosopher (Locke?) during the Age of Enlightenment wrote about the unreliability of our senses. The idea is unsettling to me, but all we can do is make the best decisions we can with the biology and minds we have (and with the technology humankind has made) with which to work with.

Some evolutionist authors have addressed the claim that "if naturalism is true then we are the product of a natural process that favours survival over truth". Part of it involves that in order for us (and other animals) to survive (or at least improved odds of survival) they have to have some degree of accuracy in their senses and mental perceptions. Having certain kinds of incorrect perceptions would be detrimental to their survival, or at least greatly impair their chances of survival.

I am extremely skeptical of the idea that some kind of mind is directing biological evolution and cosmological evolution, unless the mind is that of the universe itself (if the universe as a whole has a mind). It is more acceptable to me to think of the universe (even the supposed early singularity) as being a quantum computer with a mind, than it is for me to accept that an intelligence outside of the universe is directing the universe. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_the_Universe and https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4455 ("The universe as quantum computer"). Also the idea of some kind of panpsychism is more acceptable to me than the idea that an intelligence outside of the universe is directing the universe.

28

Jesus as 'The mighty + almighty God'

by JW Answers in

jehovah's witnesses refuse to believe that jesus is the almighty god.

they would state that jesus is 'mighty', but not almighty.. below is a 30 minute video proving from the word of god that the lord jesus christ is both mighty and almighty, separate from the father but equal too.. the verses used from scripture show without a doubt that christ is mighty (isaiah 9:6) and almighty (rev 1:7-8)..

Disillusioned JW

slimboyfat, that is an excellent comment you made about Hebrews 1:4. You nailed it. Great job. What you said about Phil 2:5-11 is also what those verses are convey. Great job on explaining the meaning of those scriptures!

The quote by Sea Breeze of a translation of words attributed to
Ignatius, was likely translated from corrupted manuscripts. From prior research, I read other translations of the early church father based upon other manuscripts which excluded claims of Jesus being God. Sea Breeze chooses instead to quote from those which say Jesus is God, instead of those which don't say Jesus is God.

49

Early Hominem. Neanderthals. Evolution.

by solameguy12 in

so i grew up as a witness but i’m no longer active, i have some family that still practices very seriously.

but i don’t want to ask them my question.

but what does the bible and teaching’s of jw’s say about early hominids?

Disillusioned JW

Vidiot I think Sea Breeze made an honest mistake in thinking you were referring to the Genesis chapter one account of creation (at least as part of what you meant) when you mentioned "Genesis-as-literal-history is too deeply baked into WT cosmology". After all, the Eden account is not cosmology (though it is a part of purported history), but the Genesis chapter one creation account is cosmology. Also to many creationists, the Genesis chapter one creation account is also history (that is, a history of the origin of the physical heavens [including sky, stars, sun, moon], Earth, and of biological life).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_cosmology says the following. "Religious cosmology is an explanation of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe from a religious perspective. This may include beliefs on origin in the form of a creation myth, subsequent evolution, current organizational form and nature, and eventual fate or destiny."

https://www.britannica.com/question/How-is-astronomy-different-from-cosmology says the following. "stronomy is the study of objects and phenomena beyond Earth, whereas cosmology is a branch of astronomy that studies the origin of the universe and how it has evolved. For example, the big bang, the origin of the chemical elements, and the cosmic microwave background are all subjects of cosmology. However, other subjects such as extrasolar planets and stars in the present Milky Way Galaxy are not."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cosmology gives the following definitions.

"1

a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe 2 : a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe also : a theory dealing with these matters"

49

Early Hominem. Neanderthals. Evolution.

by solameguy12 in

so i grew up as a witness but i’m no longer active, i have some family that still practices very seriously.

but i don’t want to ask them my question.

but what does the bible and teaching’s of jw’s say about early hominids?

Disillusioned JW

Correction/Update: In prior post I wrote "... the idea of the Gap Theory which Christian believers in biblical creation (before Russell began the WT) came up with in the 1800s ...." I said the 1800s because I thought the idea originated then. I knew it began heavy promotion back then. Later in my post I said it originated by a Christian theologian in the 17th century, because I later found information in Wikipedia which gives credit to such.

The Wikipedia article also says the following.

'In 1954, a few years before the re-emergence of young-Earth flood-geology eclipsed Gap creationism, influential evangelical theologian Bernard Ramm wrote in The Christian View of Science and Scripture:[4]

"The gap theory has become the standard interpretation throughout hyper-orthodoxy, appearing in an endless stream of books, booklets, Bible studies, and periodical articles. In fact, it has become so sacrosanct with some that to question it is equivalent to tampering with Sacred Scripture or to manifest modernistic leanings".

'

49

Early Hominem. Neanderthals. Evolution.

by solameguy12 in

so i grew up as a witness but i’m no longer active, i have some family that still practices very seriously.

but i don’t want to ask them my question.

but what does the bible and teaching’s of jw’s say about early hominids?

Disillusioned JW

The WT's web page which Sea Breeze provided a link to says the following. "However, according to the Bible, the earth and the universe existed before the six days of creation. (Genesis 1:1) For that reason, Jehovah’s Witnesses have no objection to credible scientific research that indicates the earth may be billions of years old." The first sentence in that quote is one literal interpretation of the Genesis chapter one account. It is part of the idea of the Gap Theory which Christian believers in biblical creation (before Russell began the WT) came up with in the 1800s, and it is mentioned in the Scofield Reference Bible (a study Bible) edition of the KJV, which was originally published in 1909. (I own a deluxe leather copy of the 1917 revised edition of that Bible.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scofield_Reference_Bible says the following. "It was in the pages of the Scofield Reference Bible that many Christians first encountered Archbishop James Ussher's calculation of the date of Creation as 4004 BC; and through discussion of Scofield's notes, which advocated the "gap theory," fundamentalists began a serious internal debate about the nature and chronology of creation.[3] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_Creationism says the following.

"Gap creationism (also known as ruin-restoration creationism, restoration creationism, or "the Gap Theory") is a form of old Earth creationism that posits that the six-yom creation period, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved six literal 24-hour days (light being "day" and dark "night" as God specified), but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, which the theory states explains many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth.[1][2][3] It differs from day-age creationism, which posits that the 'days' of creation were much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years), and from young Earth creationism, which although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, does not posit any gap of time.

... From 1814,[4] Thomas Chalmers popularized gap creationism;[5] he attributed the concept to the 17th-century Dutch Arminian theologian Simon Episcopius. "

Notice the idea of a Gap in creation did not originate with atheists, but with a Christian theologian in the 17th century (or perhaps even earlier)!

Notice also that SeaBreeze in his quote of the WT left out the sentence in which the WT said the biblical reason (one of a literal interpretation) of why "... Jehovah’s Witnesses have no objection to credible scientific research that indicates the earth may be billions of years old."

Correction: In my prior post I had multiple typos when I wrote the following. "The idea of the Earth being far more than 10,000 years ago was the idea of scientists who were Christians believing in creation, which began before wrote his Origin of Species book. Christians believers in creation and the Bible who were geologist discover ancient extinct animals, even dinosaurs, and layers of rock, and evidence of weathering, and thus concluded the Earth was far more than 10,000 years old." I should have wrote the following instead. "The idea of the Earth being far more than 10,000 years ago was the idea of scientists who were Christians believing in creation, which began before Charles Darwin wrote his Origin of Species book. Christians believers in creation and the Bible who were geologists discovered ancient extinct animals, even dinosaurs, and layers of rock, and evidence of weathering, and thus concluded the Earth was far more than 10,000 years old."

The "me.It " in my prior post is an error created by this website (and by me leaving out a blank space), due it 'thinking' it was a URl. I meant it to simply say "me. " followed by the word "It".