Evolution wording removed from draft of Arizona school science standards

[Shawnster]

10 minutes ago, jwhess said:

The three points I would like to make (in reference to the genetics) are:

 

The mule, the ass or donkey and the horse are all of the same "kind" or genus, which is equine in nature.  None of the breeding experiments attempt to mate horses with black bears for instance.  So the production of a new "species" is not the kind of evolutionary trends textbooks tout as the cause of all of the animals on the planet.

 

 

This is a grand point often overlooked. What science calls species is more arbitrary than the Biblical kind.  

[Wm-Scott]

5 hours ago, EccentricM said:

What I wish to ask though is if there is "anything" in his research that can be salvaged? He clearly has tried to perform calculations in accordance to YEC math, but I wonder if there is anything in his finds that can be reconciled with accurate science and biblical teachings.

He is a tainted source. Since he has lied and distorted evidence, his "evidence" has no valve. 

 

That being said, he is not going to be wrong on every point. He does believe in the creator. But looking for evidence in creationist writings is like looking for dinner in a trash dumpster. The majority of what you ingest will be rotten and poisoness. Since creationists don't even understand evolution, they are incapable of hitting the target. You have to understand an argument before you can defeat it. They are like a blind boxer in the ring, they can't land a punch and are totally defenseless. I however, have not read his book, I can't tell you if he happened to get anything right. From the reviews that I have read and the interview I listened to, it doesn't sound like it. Creationism is in such conflict with scripture, it is to be expected.

[bobby]

sorry off topetck 

 but any make a note that when Evolution comes up it only about  animals and not plants 

back to topick

 

[Stavro]

10 minutes ago, bobby said:

sorry off topetck 

 but any make a note that when Evolution comes up it only about  animals and not plants 

back to topick

Plants adapt and mutate constantly, and it's relatively easy for humans to introduce desired changes to a particular line of plants.

 

Unfortunately, this goes against the young-earth anti-science narrative, so it gets ignored in these sorts of discussions.

[Ahuvah]

I'm not a creationist either, and I don't understand evolution either ... not in a hurry to either. Heh

[humblebee]

18 hours ago, Wm-Scott said:

Over long periods of time, this gradual changing has changes species into different species. 

Bro. william how long are the “periods of time” estimated to be by science? I only ask because the biblical account of the creation of man and the time span of generations meticulously recorded in the bible, only takes us back to around 4’000 bce. 

[humblebee]

2 hours ago, Stormswift said:

 

I'm not a creationist either, and I don't understand evolution either ... not in a hurry to either. Heh

 

Depends what you mean by creationist, I guess. I believe Jehovah cannot lie - therefore, however long the “days” of the creation and evolution of the rest of life on Earth were ( possibly billions of years) I do not believe that Man followed the same route to Eden. Eden was it seems, a small area of the earth which Jehovah perfected in order to place his first perfect man. That man and his descendants were to spread Edenic conditions all over the Earth. True, we do not know how long Adam had been in Eden before being turfed out and we do not know how long the process of making Adam took.(Genesis 2:7 And Jehovah God went on to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living person) I believe it took only moments rather than millenia - based on the account of Eve’s creation being a rib taken from Adam & fashioned into another person. Also, how the Angels can fashion up a body to order to be able to give a witness to us when Jah needed them to. I guess that I believe that the creation of Man was an “exception to the rule” of evolution - given that the Grand Creator has the power to do whatsoever he wishes. 

 

Look at it this way - setting aside all the complex scientific knowledge and education there is in the world ( which I don’t understand either!) logic tells me that if Man had existed for much more than 6,000 to 7,000 years - we would have destroyed our planet ten times over! God’s word, the bible, is always right - maybe all will be revealed if we keep the faith and make it to the new Eden!

[Stavro]

4 minutes ago, humbleebee said:

Depends what you mean by creationist, I guess.

In this context, it's a reference to the false and completely unscriptural idea of young earth creationism, the teaching that the earth is 6000 years old and fossils are a hoax to disprove religion.

 

The parts of evolution that we acknowledge as truth are purely on the topics of plant and animal life, the age of humankind isn't really relevant to the discussion.

[Ahuvah]

1 hour ago, humbleebee said:

Depends what you mean by creationist, I guess. I believe Jehovah cannot lie - therefore, however long the “days” of the creation and evolution of the rest of life on Earth were ( possibly billions of years) I do not believe that Man followed the same route to Eden. Eden was it seems, a small area of the earth which Jehovah perfected in order to place his first perfect man. That man and his descendants were to spread Edenic conditions all over the Earth. True, we do not know how long Adam had been in Eden before being turfed out and we do not know how long the process of making Adam took.(Genesis 2:7 And Jehovah God went on to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living person) I believe it took only moments rather than millenia - based on the account of Eve’s creation being a rib taken from Adam & fashioned into another person. Also, how the Angels can fashion up a body to order to be able to give a witness to us when Jah needed them to. I guess that I believe that the creation of Man was an “exception to the rule” of evolution - given that the Grand Creator has the power to do whatsoever he wishes. 

 

Look at it this way - setting aside all the complex scientific knowledge and education there is in the world ( which I don’t understand either!) logic tells me that if Man had existed for much more than 6,000 to 7,000 years - we would have destroyed our planet ten times over! God’s word, the bible, is always right - maybe all will be revealed if we keep the faith and make it to the new Eden!

Hi Sister Teresa, 

Lovely to see you again.

 

The term 'creationist' is meant in the way the world sees them, and that is where the problem lies, 

Here are some popular views of the world which is why I remove myself from being classed as a creationist.

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101983166?q=creationists&p=par

 

 

Also this link: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102006321?q=creationists&p=par

States in part:

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the creation account as recorded in the Bible book of Genesis. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not what you might think of as creationists. Why not? First, many creationists believe that the universe and the earth and all life on it were created in six 24-hour days some 10,000 years ago. This, however, is not what the Bible teaches.* Also, creationists have embraced many doctrines that lack support in the Bible. Jehovah’s Witnesses base their religious teachings solely on God’s Word.

 

 

Eden was quite a large area, the garden was a small part of Eden -  Genesis 2:8

Please also see "EDEN" in the insight books.

 

With reference to the length of time Adam was in the garden of Eden, please see "ADAM" in addition to "EDEN" in the insight books. You will find it could have been as little as 3-4 decades or as much

"Finally, after 930 years, most of which were spent in the slow proess of dying, Adam returned to the ground from which he was taken, in the year 3096 BCE, just as Jehovah had said. - Insight ADAM.  - using this date and Seth's age it is possible to calculate within a decade or so how long he was in the garden, my leaky brain won't let me remember exactly how long - there is a thread about it here somewhere though.

 

There is thread on here, that also talks about the difference between 'creation' of the human body and angels materializing human bodies. When angels materialize they are tranferring their already created life into a shell that has been materialized, whereas the creation of Adam included breathing the breath of life into him, thus becoming a living soul - a whole new creation - which of course is reserved for the hand of Jehovah only.

 

As far as scientific structures/beliefs go ... I am happy to scripturally back up PROVEN science, but as far as theories go, even sub theories that may have some basis - it too easily becomes a distraction - because it doesn't matter ... and for me delving into layers so that things can be proven to exist to a small degree  ... are all "Pie in the sky' because it's not part of the bigger picture that Jehovah wants us to focus on, especially moreso since we are at the cusp of the great tribulation.

 

 

 

[humblebee]

6 hours ago, Stormswift said:

However, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not what you might think of as creationists. Why not? First, many creationists believe that the universe and the earth and all life on it were created in six 24-hour days some 10,000 years ago.

Hello Mandi - great to chat with you too!

 

Ah! Then I am not a “Creationist” either in that sense then!

Thanks so much for the brill references - my head is a bit clearer now! 🤪👌

I will have to spend more time viewing the older threads, as much has obviously been said already. . . . 

[Wm-Scott]

15 hours ago, humbleebee said:

Bro. william how long are the “periods of time” estimated to be by science? I only ask because the biblical account of the creation of man and the time span of generations meticulously recorded in the bible, only takes us back to around 4’000 bce. 

The 6 creative days start with an already existing earth and describe the progressive creation of life on earth. Each of the creative days are of an unstated length. It was once taught that each creative day was 7,000 years long, but that understanding is no longer viewed as certain and it is now understood that the creative days may have been much longer. It is clear that the creative days were of different lengths since some of the events took much longer to occur. It is believed in science that the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. People attack the dating methods used, but they fail to realize that the continents have moved over time. By reconstructing where the continents where in the past, and when, it is possible to know how fast they moved which is very slowly. Since it is impossible for the continents to move quickly, this puts a limit on how recently past events could have occurred. We are definetly looking at a very long time for the existence of life on earth  obviously millions of years. It really doesn't matter how many millions or even billions of years life has been on earth, since the length of the creative week is not given. The only dating conflict with the Bible is for finding remains of modern man older than 6,000 years. You can ignore the findings of early "man" since they are talking about extinct species of "apes".

[Ahuvah]

The continents could have moved apart VERY quickly during the flood. 

[Stavro]

48 minutes ago, Stormswift said:

The continents could have moved apart VERY quickly during the flood. 

The magnetic fields of basalt in the ocean floor have a 'memory' of the earth's magnetic pole throughout the time of the continental drift. And since the magnetic pole takes many hundreds or thousands of years to flip, we can safely rule out any theory of the continents moving at a rate of 50 miles per day during the flood.

[Ahuvah]

9 hours ago, humbleebee said:

Hello Mandi - great to chat with you too!

 

Ah! Then I am not a “Creationist” either in that sense then!

Thanks so much for the brill references - my head is a bit clearer now! 🤪👌

I will have to spend more time viewing the older threads, as much has obviously been said already. . . . 

The online jwlibrary is a great source of tweaking things. I often check that before posting to make sure i'm on the right track. 

[Shawnster]

11 hours ago, Stormswift said:

The continents could have moved apart VERY quickly during the flood. 

Why would they move faster during the flood?  What would cause that? 

[Ahuvah]

It's always been my understanding through study.

 

This is one of the contributory factors amongst many:

 

With the sudden opening of the ‘springs of the watery deep’ and “the floodgates of the heavens,” untold billions of tons of water deluged the earth. (Ge 7:11) This may have caused tremendous changes in earth’s surface. The earth’s crust, which is relatively thin and varied in thickness, is stretched over a rather plastic mass thousands of kilometers in diameter. Hence, under the added weight of the water, there was likely a great shifting in the crust. In time new mountains evidently were thrust upward, old mountains rose to new heights, shallow sea basins were deepened, and new shorelines were established, with the result that now about 70 percent of the surface is covered with water. This shifting in the earth’s crust may account for many geologic phenomena, such as the raising of old coastlines to new heights. It has been estimated by some that water pressures alone were equal to “2 tons per square inch,” sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora quickly.—See The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch, by D. Patten, 1966, p. 62.

 

Of course validated by the it books ... and i've not seen anything from the organization that supercedes this. 

[Wm-Scott]

1 hour ago, Stormswift said:

—See The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch, by D. Patten, 1966, p. 62.

When I did my research for my book on the flood I read this book along with many others. Having read the book from cover to cover and researching it in great detail, I a can assure you with total certainty that the book is complete nonsense. It is a creationist book that is in complete conflict with all the evidence. There is no possibility that the flood happened in the way they discribe. Those who know geology feel sorry for those who don’t and are fooled by fraudulent books like this. Some think that creationist authors should be locked up for lying to people. I am always very deeply embarrassed when our publications would quote from creationists. Hopefully that grave mistake has been corrected and will never be repeated again. 

[Shawnster]

2 hours ago, Stormswift said:

It's always been my understanding through study.

 

This is one of the contributory factors amongst many:

 

With the sudden opening of the ‘springs of the watery deep’ and “the floodgates of the heavens,” untold billions of tons of water deluged the earth. (Ge 7:11) This may have caused tremendous changes in earth’s surface. The earth’s crust, which is relatively thin and varied in thickness, is stretched over a rather plastic mass thousands of kilometers in diameter. Hence, under the added weight of the water, there was likely a great shifting in the crust. In time new mountains evidently were thrust upward, old mountains rose to new heights, shallow sea basins were deepened, and new shorelines were established, with the result that now about 70 percent of the surface is covered with water. This shifting in the earth’s crust may account for many geologic phenomena, such as the raising of old coastlines to new heights. It has been estimated by some that water pressures alone were equal to “2 tons per square inch,” sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora quickly.—See The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch, by D. Patten, 1966, p. 62.

 

Of course validated by the it books ... and i've not seen anything from the organization that supercedes this. 

 

I don't take the above to be commenting on plate tectonics.  Sounds like raising and lowering of mountain ranges/topography changes.  Like when you shoot water at a pile of dirt.  The water pushes dirt down, to the sides and up forming mounds and channels.  

[Old]

2 hours ago, Wm-Scott said:

When I did my research for my book on the flood I read this book along with many others. Having read the book from cover to cover and researching it in great detail, I a can assure you with total certainty that the book is complete nonsense. It is a creationist book that is in complete conflict with all the evidence. There is no possibility that the flood happened in the way they discribe. Those who know geology feel sorry for those who don’t and are fooled by fraudulent books like this. Some think that creationist authors should be locked up for lying to people. I am always very deeply embarrassed when our publications would quote from creationists. Hopefully that grave mistake has been corrected and will never be repeated again. 

Here I am hampered again by only being able to give one 'like' so here it is LIKE!

[vern]

personally i call evolution teaching a hypothesis.  theory's are upgraded hypothesis when they get proof.

[trottigy]

as this also leads to flood topic - its here ->  

 

As this is from the IT book - I am happy to stick with it until we see a change:

 

Quote

Effect on the Earth. With the Deluge great changes came, for example, the life span of humans dropped very rapidly. Some have suggested that prior to the Flood the waters above the expanse shielded out some of the harmful radiation and that, with the waters gone, cosmic radiation genetically harmful to man increased. However, the Bible is silent on the matter. Incidentally, any change in radiation would have altered the rate of formation of radioactive carbon-14 to such an extent as to invalidate all radiocarbon dates prior to the Flood.

 

With the sudden opening of the ‘springs of the watery deep’ and “the floodgates of the heavens,” untold billions of tons of water deluged the earth. (Ge 7:11) This may have caused tremendous changes in earth’s surface. The earth’s crust, which is relatively thin and varied in thickness, is stretched over a rather plastic mass thousands of kilometers in diameter. Hence, under the added weight of the water, there was likely a great shifting in the crust. In time new mountains evidently were thrust upward, old mountains rose to new heights, shallow sea basins were deepened, and new shorelines were established, with the result that now about 70 percent of the surface is covered with water. This shifting in the earth’s crust may account for many geologic phenomena, such as the raising of old coastlines to new heights. It has been estimated by some that water pressures alone were equal to “2 tons per square inch,” sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora quickly.—See The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch, by D. Patten, 1966, p. 62.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001150#h=9

 

I think some might have commented differently if they realized this is currently our official stand on the topic.

[Wm-Scott]

6 hours ago, trottigy said:

I think some might have commented differently if they realized this is currently our official stand on the topic.

No. Because our publications are not inspired.

 

*** g93 3/22 p. 4 Why So Many False Alarms? ***
“We have not the gift of prophecy.” (January 1883, page 425) “Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible.” (December 15, 1896, page 306) The Watchtower has also said that the fact that some have Jehovah’s spirit “does not mean those now serving as Jehovah’s witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes.” (May 15, 1947, page 157) “The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic.” (August 15, 1950, page 263) “The brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) And so, at times, it has been necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18)”—February 15, 1981, page 19."

 

We have also been told to;

 

*** w17 July pp. 28-29 Winning the Battle for Your Mind ***
"Keep in mind that Satan does not want you to think clearly or reason things out well. Why? Because propaganda “is likely to be most effective,” says one source, “if people . . . are discouraged from thinking critically.” (Media and Society in the Twentieth Century) So never be content passively or blindly to accept what you hear. (Prov. 14:15) Use your God-given thinking abilities and power of reason to make the truth your own.—Prov. 2:10-15; Rom. 12:1, 2."

 

*** w81 12/1 pp. 16-17 par. 3 ‘Light Has Flashed Up for the Righteous’ ***
"The experience of God’s servants has been just like that. Viewing certain matters from a distance in time and with only a little light on the subject often we have had an incomplete, and even an inaccurate, view of things. In such situations we may well have been influenced by previously held views. But as the light gets brighter and we draw much closer to events, then our understanding of the outworking of God’s purposes becomes clearer."

 

As Jehovah's Witnesses, we reject blind faith. We do not believe something simply because it is stated in one of our publications since our publications are not inspired nor is the governing body infallible. We are directed to make the truth our own by searching to see if it is real and makes logical sense, that it is believable in light of the evidence.  Old viewpoints have had to be corrected at times because As Jehovah's Witnesses, we reject blind faith. We do not believe something simply because it is stated in one of our publications since our publications are not inspired nor is the governing body infallible. We are directed to make the truth our own by searching to see if it is real and makes logical sense, that it is believable in light of the evidence.  Old viewpoints have had to be corrected at times because "may well have been influenced by previously held views."  

 

Now on a question of scientific details of how the flood happened, are you going to cite chapter and verse in the IT book as an absolute authority? If the governing body is not dogmatic, we should not be so either. While we believe that the flood happened, how it happened is not of critical importance. We should be open to examining the evidence and making up our minds, since we don't believe in blind faith.

[trottigy]

24 minutes ago, Wm-Scott said:

 

Now on a question of scientific details of how the flood happened, are you going to cite chapter and verse in the IT book as an absolute authority? If the governing body is not dogmatic, we should not be so either. While we believe that the flood happened, how it happened is not of critical importance. We should be open to examining the evidence and making up our minds, since we don't believe in blind faith.

This is fine, but forcing our own different opinion on our brothers who will likely use the slave as a source is not our place. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Shouldn't it also be wrong of us to tell one of our brothers or sisters who quotes from a recent publication of ours (especially one recently updated) that what is in print there is complete nonsense?

 

I know I wouldn't have "liked" a post that did that IF I had known.

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by trottigy

[Wm-Scott]

On 6/13/2018 at 4:34 PM, trottigy said:

This is fine, but forcing our own different opinion on our brothers who will likely use the slave as a source is not our place. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Shouldn't it also be wrong of us to tell one of our brothers or sisters who quotes from a recent publication of ours (especially one recently updated) that what is in print there is complete nonsense?

If I had know the person was quoting from our publication, I would have been much more tackful. I respect the viewpoints of others, but if they agrue for things that clearly are impossible, I will point that out.

Edited June 15, 2018 by trottigy

[Witness1970]

On ‎6‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 8:30 AM, Wm-Scott said:

We know from scripture, that Jehovah created a number of different animal "kinds" over a long period of time. But what animals Jehovah directly created and what animals evolved from those created kinds, we do not know. Did Jehovah create just a few animals or many different species? Apparently He directly created a bat and a dolphin. 

We should be careful using the word species and the word kind.  They are not at all related.  The word 'kind' as defined in the Bible is animals that can breed.  The word species encompasses animals that can breed between species.  Recently, science decided that, instead of one species known as Giraffe, there are now six different species of Giraffe.  Bears have a lot of different species, but they are all one kind.

The next step up from species is Genus and the next step up from Genus is Family.  Man's classification of "Family" seems to be more closely related to the 'kind' used in the Bible.  Truthfully, none of these classifications may exactly fit the Bible 'kind", but 'family' seems to be the closest and it certainly cuts down on the number of animals needed aboard the Ark to preserve each kind.