Jump to content
JWTalk - Jehovah's Witnesses Discussion Forum
Tbs77

Evolution wording removed from draft of Arizona school science standards

Recommended Posts

Several recent Findings have emerged in recent years that are rather prickly for the Theory of Evolution. The human genome project has resulted in discoveries like :” 90% of all life on earth emerged at the same time about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago “ and “ Genetic Entropy is outpacing the rate of positive mutations “ and additionally the discovery of “ The Neolithic y-chromosome bottleneck “ all have geneticist and Atheist alike somewhat flummoxed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2018 at 11:58 AM, Witness1970 said:

.  The word 'kind' as defined in the Bible is animals that can breed

The Bible doesn’t define what a kind is, if it is indeed animals that can breed, then the kinds have change over time. Since the kinds Jehovah created over time gave rise to difference kinds that could no longer breed. Many animals went extinct while new ones were bred into extistance. Over time there have been great changes in the animals living on earth. The dinosaurs once dominated but now are gone, their kind or kinds disappeared.

 

it is also clear that not all animals were in the Ark. Fish and marine mammals obviously were not on the ark. Then there is the case of the unique animals in Australia that only existed there and also only existed there before the flood. How did they get to the ark and back, without ending up anywhere else? There was a massive extinction event there at the time of the flood. It appears to me that a few animals may have survived by rafting. My thought is that some land animals survived here and there around the world by rafting or climbing on to glaciers. Local survival of some animals would explain some of the patterns seen in the Pleistocene extinct event where smaller animals had a better chance of surviving. There probably were fewer animals on the ark than many people think.

Edited by Wm-Scott
Grammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Wm-Scott said:

 

it is also clear that not all animals were in the Ark. Fish and marine mammals obviously were not on the ark. Then there is the case of the unique animals in Australia that only existed there and also only existed there before the flood. How did they get to the ark and back, without ending up anywhere else? There was a massive extinction event there at the time of the flood. It appears to me that a few animals may have survived by rafting. My thought is that some land animals survived here and there around the world by rafting or climbing on to glaciers. Local survival of some animals would explain some of the patterns seen in the Pleistocene extinct event where smaller animals had a better chance of surviving. There probably were fewer animals on the ark than many people think.

How do you match your thinking that “some animals survived” with the bibles statement that “every living thing was wiped from the earth” in Genesis 7

 

Genesis 7:21 So all living creatures that were moving on the earth perished—the flying creatures, the domestic animals, the wild animals, the swarming creatures, and all mankind.  22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.  23 So He wiped every living thing from the surface of the earth, including man, animals, creeping animals, and the flying creatures of the sky. They were all wiped off the earth; only Noah and those with him in the ark survived.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Wm-Scott said:

Then there is the case of the unique animals in Australia that only existed there and also only existed there before the flood. 

Whut? 

 

I'll have to research prehistoric kangaroos now.  You imply Australia was not flooded or that said animals did not float far during the year of the flood. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, MentalProject said:

How do you match your thinking that “some animals survived” with the bibles statement that “every living thing was wiped from the earth” in Genesis 7

 

Genesis 7:21 So all living creatures that were moving on the earth perished—the flying creatures, the domestic animals, the wild animals, the swarming creatures, and all mankind.  22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.  23 So He wiped every living thing from the surface of the earth, including man, animals, creeping animals, and the flying creatures of the sky. They were all wiped off the earth; only Noah and those with him in the ark survived.  

It’s a reasonable question. So let’s see what everyone says. How could the unique animals of Australia ( which appear to be in Australia prior to @5000bc. ) survive the flood and return to that land? I have a thought , but before I express it I , for one , would

like to hear others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BenJepthah said:

It’s a reasonable question. So let’s see what everyone says. How could the unique animals of Australia ( which appear to be in Australia prior to @5000bc. ) survive the flood and return to that land? I have a thought , but before I express it I , for one , would

like to hear others.

Similar reasoning to why there were lions in the middle east but not now perhaps. People ship them, breeds die out, or move. Since it's said fossils are rare and usually are caused by "events", this would explain why no remains of lions were found in the middle east, only national records and mention of them.

 

Genesis states Noah's decendants split across the earth, and animals of course would have went with them. The argument with the Austrailia thing is that "the flood did not happen, we have no evidence the kangaroos hopped all the way to Austrailia". But this doesnt have to be the case. One with the fossil point I mentioned, and a second, man's transportation. The argument against the position that man took them there as that Australia was not touched by man until the later ages in human history.

 

But more recent research has shown ancient remains of man there which are said to go back to or beyond the stone age. Since evolutionists now mention "neanderthals" and other early men being in Australia, which means... it was founded by men a long, long time ago. As the tribes spread it's not stupid to reason the animals that live in certain areas were taken there by these people, perhaps due to the fact they they knew they belonged there, much like modern attempts at rehabitation.

 

For years man has shipped and transported various species to inhabit other places. A modern example is grey squirels here in the UK. They are from the US, the British are almost extinct. There are no fossil or bone remains of the British species anywhere, but we have historical record of them, and of course a few that have been preserved via human intervention.

Edited by EccentricM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MentalProject said:

How do you match your thinking that “some animals survived” with the bibles statement that “every living thing was wiped from the earth” in Genesis 7

 

Genesis 7:21 So all living creatures that were moving on the earth perished—the flying creatures, the domestic animals, the wild animals, the swarming creatures, and all mankind.  22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.  23 So He wiped every living thing from the surface of the earth, including man, animals, creeping animals, and the flying creatures of the sky. They were all wiped off the earth; only Noah and those with him in the ark survived.  

All air breathing animals still on the land surface died when the flood waters covered the land. From Noah's point of view, only what was with him in the ark survived, but as we know, some tbings did survive outside tge ark like whales. My opionon is that just as marine animals survived outside the ark, other animals may have as well, perhaps living on floating vegetation or seeking refuge on glaciers. It seems to be the only natural explanation for the survival of animals that should not have survived like the isolated animals in Australia and other far off places. The other possibility is divine action, but if it was by God's power, why did only a few of the many preflood animals in those areas survive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Wm-Scott said:

All air breathing animals still on the land surface died when the flood waters covered the land. From Noah's point of view, only what was with him in the ark survived, but as we know, some tbings did survive outside tge ark like whales. My opionon is that just as marine animals survived outside the ark, other animals may have as well, perhaps living on floating vegetation or seeking refuge on glaciers. It seems to be the only natural explanation for the survival of animals that should not have survived like the isolated animals in Australia and other far off places. The other possibility is divine action, but if it was by God's power, why did only a few of the many preflood animals in those areas survive?

We should note that not every preflood animal type may have been around by the time of the flood. It is not, for example, necessary to think that Dinosaurs existed even at the time of the creation of Adam. Many species in the fossil record may have long ago passed from the scene before the sixth creative day . So, by the time of Noah the animals that currently exist on earth or some special version thereof may have been the only ones needed aboard the Ark in order to replace their peers . 

Edited by BenJepthah
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BenJepthah said:

It’s a reasonable question. So let’s see what everyone says. How could the unique animals of Australia ( which appear to be in Australia prior to @5000bc. ) survive the flood and return to that land? I have a thought , but before I express it I , for one , would

like to hear others.

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000281#h=7:0-7:829

Some have contended that the presence of animals on isolated islands like Australia and New Zealand is an indication that not all land animals outside the ark perished in the Deluge. However, the findings of oceanographers indicate that at one time land ridges connected what are now isolated land areas. For example, oceanographic studies indicate that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge may have crossed that ocean above the surface. Possibly there were also other ridges, and animals could have migrated by means of these before such ridges sank below the surface of the ocean. Other oceanographic studies have turned up evidence that once there existed a huge South Pacific continent that took in Australia and many of the South Sea isles. If such was the case, then, of course, the animals had no difficulty in migrating to these lands. - Animals, Insight on the scriptures Vol 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BenJepthah said:

We should note that not every preflood animal type may have been around by the time of the flood. It is not, for example, necessary to think that Dinosaurs existed even at the time of the creation of Adam. Many species in the fossil record may have long ago passed from the scene before the sixth creative day . So, by the time of Noah the animals that currently exist on earth or some special version thereof may have been the only ones needed aboard the Ark in 

Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, so they and many others were extinct by the time of the flood. Most of the animals in the fossil record were extinct before the flood occurred. The flood occurred toward the end of the last Ice Age and is the divider between the Pleistocene and the Holocene epochs and is known in geology as the Pleistocene extinction event though the cause of the Pleistocene extinction event is unknown to science since they don't believe that the global flood occurred. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/end-big-beasts.html

 

At the time of the flood, most of the large late Ice Age mammals went extinct. In Australia and New Zealand, quite a number of animals also went extinct. Yet some survived. I believe it was local survival of a few smaller animals that managed to survive somehow. Or perhaps a few corners had to cut to get a basic sampling of animals in the ark and there just wasn't room for the bigger ones? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MentalProject said:

the findings of oceanographers indicate that at one time land ridges connected what are now isolated land areas. For example, oceanographic studies indicate that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge may have crossed that ocean above the surface. Possibly there were also other ridges, and animals could have migrated by means of these before such ridges sank below the surface of the ocean. Other oceanographic studies have turned up evidence that once there existed a huge South Pacific continent that took in Australia and many of the South Sea isles. If such was the case, then, of course, the animals had no difficulty in migrating to these lands. - Animals, Insight on the scriptures Vol 1

"Repeated episodes of extended glaciation during the Pleistocene epochresulted in decreases of sea levels by more than 100 metres in Australasia.[5] People appear to have arrived by sea during a period of glaciation, when New Guinea and Tasmania were joined to the continent of Australia.

The continental coastline extended much further out into the Timor Sea, and Australia and New Guinea formed a single landmass (known as Sahul), connected by an extensive land bridge across the Arafura Sea, Gulf of Carpentaria and Torres Strait. Nevertheless, the sea still presented a major obstacle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Australia

 

The greater landmass of the Pleistocene Australia was still separated from the Asian landmass by 90 km, so there was no land bridge from Australia to Asia. This gap created what is known as the "Wallace line" and is why the animals in the areas around Australia are different from the animals in Asia. For this difference in animals to exist both before the flood and after, requires either local survival or divine intervention in post flood animal distrabution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wm-Scott said:

All air breathing animals still on the land surface died when the flood waters covered the land. From Noah's point of view, only what was with him in the ark survived, but as we know, some tbings did survive outside tge ark like whales. My opionon is that just as marine animals survived outside the ark, other animals may have as well, perhaps living on floating vegetation or seeking refuge on glaciers. It seems to be the only natural explanation for the survival of animals that should not have survived like the isolated animals in Australia and other far off places. The other possibility is divine action, but if it was by God's power, why did only a few of the many preflood animals in those areas survive?

 

See the thing is the bible says Gen 7:23 So He wiped every living thing from the surface of the earth, including man, animals, creeping animals, and the flying creatures of the sky. They were all wiped off the earth; only Noah and those with him in the ark survived.

 

You are right it is only talking about land And flying animals here but after talking about these types of animals it says only Noah and the animals on the ark survived. The bible does not say only Noah and those with him in the ark survived (and also a few other animals that escaped on drifting things)

 

The bible is quite clear and unambiguous about the account. Is it too much to think that divine intervention was involved afterwards? After all the whole flood account was an act of divine intervention. This would fit with the bible account more closely and the faithful slaves thoughts on the matter. Anything contrary disagrees with the bible and our publications which is a dangerous road to go down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EccentricM said:

Genesis states Noah's decendants split across the earth, and animals of course would have went with them. The argument with the Austrailia thing is that "the flood did not happen, we have no evidence the kangaroos hopped all the way to Austrailia". But this doesnt have to be the case. One with the fossil point I mentioned, and a second, man's transportation. The argument against the position that man took them there as that Australia was not touched by man until the later ages in human history.

Your theory is very believable for domestic animals but makes no sense for wild animals. Why would any one in primitive time go to the trouble of moving large numbers of animals that would not be of much help and yet not transport any domesticated animals? The early Australians had no domesticated animals.I don't believe they were selflessly following  a divine command since they were traveling because their language had been changed because they had refused to obey Jehovah's  commands. Those who were faithful did not have their language changed and lived in the middle east.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MentalProject said:

See the thing is the bible says Gen 7:23 So He wiped every living thing from the surface of the earth, including man, animals, creeping animals, and the flying creatures of the sky. They were all wiped off the earth; only Noah and those with him in the ark survived.

 

You are right it is only talking about land And flying animals here but after talking about these types of animals it says only Noah and the animals on the ark survived. The bible does not say only Noah and those with him in the ark survived (and also a few other animals that escaped on drifting things)

 

The bible is quite clear and unambiguous about the account. Is it too much to think that divine intervention was involved afterwards? After all the whole flood account was an act of divine intervention. This would fit with the bible account more closely and the faithful slaves thoughts on the matter. Anything contrary disagrees with the bible and our publications which is a dangerous road to go down.

No it is not too much to ask and it is always possible. However, that is not what the available evidence indicates. It points very firmly that some animals survived locally while most did not. That leaves us with two choices, either there was a lot of divine intervention both before and after the flood, or Noah was writing from his own point of view as he saw things and he was understandably unaware of a few animals surviving outside the ark. I like to consider both possibilities since interpretations of scripture sometimes change in light of scientific evidence as in the length of the creative days and the events that took place on each day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Wm-Scott said:

No it is not too much to ask and it is always possible. However, that is not what the available evidence indicates. 

And this is the problem.  The available evidence.  

 

The available evidence is not enough to support your theories, either.  If it was, the scientific community would be in agreement with your findings.  They aren't.  Your theories, while they may be correct, are still just unproven theories.  I've stated before that I find your hypothesis on the mechanisms used to cause the Flood intriguing.  That doesn't change the fact it's still just a hypothesis.  It's just your opinion and it's an opinion not shared by many in the scientific arena.

 

The available evidence the scientific community uses simply is not enough to support the Biblical account.  Scientists reject the Bible.  They do not support it and go to great lengths to discount the Flood as merely myth, legend, or a localized event exaggerated out of proportion.  

Edited by Shawnster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accepting the account of the flood and understanding that Jehovah cares for the work of His own hands ( including a diverse variety of animal and plant life ) it is neither unreasonable to assume that Jehovah intervened to preserve unique life both during or after the deluge. I wouldn’t even rule out the migration of a handful of marsupial super ancestors piggybacking on or inside a floating whale carcass in finding their way home. Nor insist that they couldn’t have been carried along in a child’s pocket as a grandchild of Ham and his family migrated to a newly greening Australian continent as it drifted north from Antarctica complete with newly exposed seedlings coming out of dormancy from the Jurassic period. Nor even the idea that Jehovah just personally transported key species from just before the flood through time and space to their current locations. Nothing is two extraordinary for Jehovah. Not even two European swallows carrying a coconut between themselves with a bit of twine.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noah wrote under inspiration and was not stating his own opinion or "writing from his own point of view." His statements include direct quotations from Jehovah as to what Jehovah was going to do, as well as what Jehovah said He actually did, after it occurred. We have to be careful that we don't change the inspired narrative by putting our own spin on it in an effort to support our private interpretation or pet theory. Reading between the lines is the same as going beyond what is written.

 

"So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, man together with domestic animals, creeping animals, and flying creatures of the heavens, for I regret that I have made them. After that God said to Noah: “I have decided to put an end to all flesh, because the earth is full of violence on account of them, so I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth. As for me, I am going to bring floodwaters upon the earth to destroy from under the heavens all flesh that has the breath of life. Everything on the earth will perish."" --- Gen. 6:7, 13, 17

 

"After that Jehovah said to Noah: “Go into the ark, you and all your household, because you are the one I have found to be righteous before me among this generation. 2 You must take with you every kind of clean animal by sevens, the male and its mate; and of every animal that is not clean just two, the male and its mate; 3 also of the flying creatures of the sky by sevens, male and female, to preserve their offspring alive over all the earth. 4 For in just seven days, I will make it rain on the earth for 40 days and 40 nights, and I will wipe from the surface of the ground every living thing that I have made."" --- Gen. 7:1-4

 

"God now said to Noah: 16 “Go out of the ark, you, your wife, your sons, and your sons’ wives. 17 Bring out with you all the living creatures of every sort of flesh, of the flying creatures and of the animals and of all the creeping animals of the earth, that they may multiply on the earth and be fruitful and become many on the earth.”" --- Gen. 8:15-17

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wm-Scott said:

No it is not too much to ask and it is always possible. However, that is not what the available evidence indicates. It points very firmly that some animals survived locally while most did not. That leaves us with two choices, either there was a lot of divine intervention both before and after the flood, or Noah was writing from his own point of view as he saw things and he was understandably unaware of a few animals surviving outside the ark. I like to consider both possibilities since interpretations of scripture sometimes change in light of scientific evidence as in the length of the creative days and the events that took place on each day. 

On a more serious note. You state that the evidence “ points very firmly that some animals survived locally” ( meaning Australia). Can you be specific about that evidence? Think about this ? If today a nuclear accident devastated Australia could the major species : Kangaroos, Tasmanian Devils, wallabies, koalas, Crocadiles , Dingos ( easy) be repatriated to Australia after about say 50!years in sufficient numbers to eventually seem as if they had never left? If your answer is yes then imagine if the species envolved were protospecies . The Dingo actually is a kind of protocanine as it is. Barely different from the Carolina dogs of North America and not much more than 50 generations from wolves. My point is that ecosystems when fostered by an intelligent caretaker can and do recover and diversify fairly quickly. Look at Chernobyl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wm-Scott said:

No it is not too much to ask and it is always possible. However, that is not what the available evidence indicates. It points very firmly that some animals survived locally while most did not. That leaves us with two choices, either there was a lot of divine intervention both before and after the flood, or Noah was writing from his own point of view as he saw things and he was understandably unaware of a few animals surviving outside the ark. I like to consider both possibilities since interpretations of scripture sometimes change in light of scientific evidence as in the length of the creative days and the events that took place on each day. 

Noah did not write Genesis, Moses did many years after the flood under the direction of Jehovah’s Holy Spirit.

 

1. It was Jehovah that guided the animals to the ark.

2. It was Jehovah that caused the flood

3. It was Jehovah’s will that they swarm out after the flood to the whole earth (Gen 8:17)

4. It was Jehovah that said he would “wipe from the surface of the ground every living thing that I have made”

5. It was Jehovah that had recorded that every breathing creature perished (Gen 7:23)

 

I have not seen anything to the contrary that would prove this didn’t happen as is plainly stated in the Genesis account. There are viable explanations for the repopulation of the planet of various animals even in Australia and New Zealand. I see no reason to confuse ourselves by getting an explanation that disagrees with what the bible says or trying to explain clear bible sentences to fit with my own interpretation of scientific evidence. To me that is pointless and not really in any bodies interest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MentalProject said:

Noah did not write Genesis, Moses did many years after the flood under the direction of Jehovah’s Holy Spirit.

 

 

It's speculated Moses had access to Noah’s logs. 

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003361

 

WHILE giving the prophecy about the sign of his presence and of the conclusion of the system of things, Jesus said: “Just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be.” (Matthew 24:3, 37) Clearly, Jesus foretold that what is happening in our day has a parallel in Noah’s time. A reliable and accurate account of the events of Noah’s day can prove to be an invaluable treasure.

 

Is Noah’s log such a treasure? Does it have the marks of a true historical document? Can we really determine when the Flood occurred?

Edited by Shawnster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conversation has ran it's course and we've drifted away from the original topic.  

 

There are numerous scientific questions we are all eager to have answered in the New System.  Life before the Flood, the Flood mechanisms, and how life migrated after the Flood are close to the top of that list.   There are many theories and opinions that we must keep in balance until we can get those answers.

 

Thank you all for your participation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

JWTalk 18.5.26 by Robert Angle (changelog)