Jump to content
JWTalk - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Evolution vs. Reproduction - A good illustration we can use in our ministry


We lock topics that are over 365 days old, and the last reply made in this topic was 1468 days ago. If you want to discuss this subject, we prefer that you start a new topic.

Recommended Posts

Building further on that idea, wouldn't it be great to have a car that would update itself every 7-15 years like most but not all of the cells in the body. Stomach and colon cells are replaced every 4 days. I wish my car's carpet and upholstery would do that. Your red blood cells are replaced every 6 month, why can't my engine oil do that on it's own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2018 at 3:10 AM, Beggar for the Spirit said:

When we talk with someone who believes strongly in evolution, we might feel sometimes overwhelmed at what to say or we may wonder, "What possible example can I share with such a person that is simple yet powerful to prove creation/design?" Well here is 1 possible example. The next time we talk with someone who wants to discuss evolution, we can simply ask them to compare evolution vs. the incredible "reproduction" of life. Here is a simple but powerful reasoning that came from an article on an "Intelligent Design" website.

 

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/11/why-evolution-and-reproduction-are-unnatural/

 

 

Magnificent article. Very helpful in this world which contains unbelievers of God's existance. I don't know why they are blind. No question that the god of this system made them blind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came across this some years ago, "the Hebrew word for evening is ' erev' It's root meaning is disorder. The Hebrew for morning is ' boker', it's root being orderly, able to be discerned. So evening to morning in Genesis describes a flow from disorder to order, contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that non managed systems do the opposite. Order out of chaos is such an improbable and unusual event that in the subtle language of Hebrew, the bible mentions it 6 times.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Ludwika said:

I came across this some years ago, "the Hebrew word for evening is ' erev' It's root meaning is disorder. The Hebrew for morning is ' boker', it's root being orderly, able to be discerned. So evening to morning in Genesis describes a flow from disorder to order, contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that non managed systems do the opposite. Order out of chaos is such an improbable and unusual event that in the subtle language of Hebrew, the bible mentions it 6 times.

Hi Sister Jennifer,

 

Thank you for your post, it was very interesting. (tu)

Could you please share with us some references,  I would enjoy reading more about what you posted, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Sister Jennifer,
 
Thank you for your post, it was very interesting. (tu)
Could you please share with us some references,  I would enjoy reading more about what you posted, thanks.
It comes from a book called The Science Of God, by Gerald Schroeder. He is a Hebrew speaker, a bible scholar and an astrophysicist. Bear in mind no author will agree with us on every point, but I checked this out in a Hebrew word dictionary too. Other spelling I've come across too is 'ereb' and 'boqer'

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ludwika said:

It comes from a book called The Science Of God, by Gerald Schroeder. He is a Hebrew speaker, a bible scholar and an astrophysicist. Bear in mind no author will agree with us on every point, but I checked this out in a Hebrew word dictionary too. Other spelling I've come across too is 'ereb' and 'boqer'

Thanks Jennifer, I will try to find out more about this, maybe others here on JWtalk either have heard about this or will find some more information in their research. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2018 at 1:40 PM, Beggar for the Spirit said:

The next time we talk with someone who wants to discuss evolution, we can simply ask them to compare evolution vs. the incredible "reproduction" of life

I like to bring reproduction into the discussion as well, only on a slightly different tack..

 

I ask them, if I go ahead and say ok, man evolved, no matter how impossible that would be, how do you account for women?

 

How did another, almost completely different entity evolve, at the same time and rate of development,  and be completely compatible in the reproductive functions?

 

Whatever the odds are against man evolving, they just doubled when you add woman...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tekmantwo said:

How did another, almost completely different entity evolve, at the same time and rate of development,  and be completely compatible in the reproductive functions?

Yes indeed. And I like to ask: "Do you think men evolved from women, or women from men, or something else???"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Beggar for the Spirit said:

Thanks Jennifer, I will try to find out more about this, maybe others here on JWtalk either have heard about this or will find some more information in their research. :)

https://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Convergence-Scientific-Biblical-ebook/dp/B002BOQMAK/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1542206681&sr=1-1&keywords=the+Science+Of+God%2C+by+Gerald+Schroeder.

 

It has a lot of good reviews.... I will read a sample first 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, jayrtom said:

I had to put this here :lol1:

 

images (1).jpeg

I always wondered why auto dealers use the phrase, "took delivery." Now I get what it's referring to. This looks like a breech birth, which may necessitate a C-section. Thanks for the thought provoking illustration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always make this analogy:

Imagine a mobile factory on big tracks, sort of like the Jawa Sandcrawler from Star Wars.

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

It has a robust hull, an engine to create energy and power, a life support system, a central computer that manages all the processes, it has tracks to move around, and it has little Jawas that gather resources from outside, bring them into the cargo bay, disassemble them, reassemble, and create new spare-parts from what they gather. It also features a huge loading bay that can open up to allow a pretty much exact replica of the Sandcrawler to be let down into the sand.

Well, so-called "simple organisms", namely cells, are exactly that, but coupled with what we today would call "nanotechnology". A cell is a self-replicating nano-factory with all the individual components a factory would need as I named above.

 

And this is where evolution completely fails to make sense, during the very beginning stages of the entire thing, at the concept known as "abiogenesis", which is life arising from non-living matter, such as so-called "self-replicating molecules". Science is grasping at straws to explain this concept, but in the very end, the explanation is literally that a tornado must have created a very simple "sandcrawler" with all the minimum necessary crew and parts to make the first self-replicating factory. And at every turn where they are able to replicate even remotely a single, individual and miniscule aspect of this supposed abiogenesis with a hint of success for a split second, they consider it "proof" of their theory.

 

One particularly ear-tickling but stupid hypothesis claims that viruses came first, before cells. Unfortunately, virusses are just bandit robots that invade Sandcrawlers in order to change the production around to create more bandit robots. They can not replicate without a host cell.

 

Evolutionary sciences are just one big, religious land of make-believe, but sadly, too many people think it's established fact. And then they say we're not allowed to think for ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always make this analogy:

Imagine a mobile factory on big tracks, sort of like the Jawa Sandcrawler from Star Wars.
 
maxresdefault.jpg&key=160253b4e5c61beafe63fac0ce887ff0dc92a69befc4d5d9ec7cc8b60684040b
 
It has a robust hull, an engine to create energy and power, a life support system, a central computer that manages all the processes, it has tracks to move around, and it has little Jawas that gather resources from outside, bring them into the cargo bay, disassemble them, reassemble, and create new spare-parts from what they gather. It also features a huge loading bay that can open up to allow a pretty much exact replica of the Sandcrawler to be let down into the sand.

Well, so-called "simple organisms", namely cells, are exactly that, but coupled with what we today would call "nanotechnology". A cell is a self-replicating nano-factory with all the individual components a factory would need as I named above.
 
And this is where evolution completely fails to make sense, during the very beginning stages of the entire thing, at the concept known as "abiogenesis", which is life arising from non-living matter, such as so-called "self-replicating molecules". Science is grasping at straws to explain this concept, but in the very end, the explanation is literally that a tornado must have created a very simple "sandcrawler" with all the minimum necessary crew and parts to make the first self-replicating factory. And at every turn where they are able to replicate even remotely a single, individual and miniscule aspect of this supposed abiogenesis with a hint of success for a split second, they consider it "proof" of their theory.
 
One particularly ear-tickling but stupid hypothesis claims that viruses came first, before cells. Unfortunately, virusses are just bandit robots that invade Sandcrawlers in order to change the production around to create more bandit robots. They can not replicate without a host cell.
 
Evolutionary sciences are just one big, religious land of make-believe, but sadly, too many people think it's established fact. And then they say we're not allowed to think for ourselves.
I like too to use the arch of the human foot. Everyone has seen a stone arch somewhere, it needs scaffolding until the keystone is in place, otherwise it falls down. It also has wedge shaped stones near the top of the arch. The arch of your foot is exactly the same, right down to wedge shaped bones and a keystone. If the arch can't hold together without the keystone, how could it have evolved by chance? And who designed the very precise wedge shaped bones if not a designer? I used this with an engineer recently with great success.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ludwika said:

like too to use the arch of the human foot

I'm sorry but I couldn't understand what do you mean by this... A literal translation for me doesn't make sense.... Can you post an image pointing to what exactly is this arch?

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Isaiah describes feet best....”How beautiful ......are the feet of the one bringing good news,The one proclaiming peace,The one bringing good news of something better.”

What are the chances of that!

The beautiful feet bringing good news of a perfect and very intelligent maker...Jehovah.

 

On the other hand...💡 (or should I say foot) 

How many evolutionists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None. Given enough time a new light bulb will evolve.


Edited by Chris7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 3:40 PM, Beggar for the Spirit said:

When we talk with someone who believes strongly in evolution, we might feel sometimes overwhelmed at what to say or we may wonder, "What possible example can I share with such a person that is simple yet powerful to prove creation/design?" Well here is 1 possible example. The next time we talk with someone who wants to discuss evolution, we can simply ask them to compare evolution vs. the incredible "reproduction" of life. Here is a simple but powerful reasoning that came from an article on an "Intelligent Design" website.

 

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/11/why-evolution-and-reproduction-are-unnatural/

 

 

Thank you for the link!   Makes me feel more comfortable posting outside links in view of the reaction I got on another thread.

 

Indeed, as the link notes, Entropy (part of the second law of thermodynamics) is against order from disorder.

 

In the book "Mystery of LIfe's Origin - Reassessing Current Theories" Thaxton et al point out the difference between informational proteins and statistical proteins and show that the latter cannot come about by chance.

 

Actually even statistical proteins from non-living matter are impossible by chance in our universe since our universe began - given our 10^80 amu (atomic mass units) visible universe and the limited time our universe has been here (14  billion years?) and the limited speed of chemical reactions (10^24 per second)] and the actual probability of the chance formation of a statistical protein  (c.10^128) given a pre-existing (highly favorable) primordial soup for which there is no geological evidence in earth's crust. 

 

Reproduction is way more difficult to achieve - human creators cannot even create a living cell from scratch!

 

I have found using Hebrews 3:4 is a good introduction proving creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Er - I meant informational proteins (containing useful for life information) cannot come about by chance (even in an infinite universe or an infinite number of universes and an infinity of time.  That degree of information, requiring chemical language and a translator, cannot come about by chance - and even if one informational protein existed it would be useless without a translator molecule able to use the information in some function required for life (including reproduction of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Newtonian said:

Thank you for the link!   Makes me feel more comfortable posting outside links in view of the reaction I got on another thread.

Hi Paul, 

 

Thanks for your posts, I am glad you enjoy discussing science/creation topics. (tu)

As for links to other websites, everybody here appreciates a link to good website, but many of us have learned our lessons from sites with biased reporting or sites that state things as facts but are unsubstantiated . So we are encouraged to provide a link, we should just try to verify the information/website first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About JWTalk.net - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Since 2006, JWTalk has proved to be a well-moderated online community for real Jehovah's Witnesses on the web. However, our community is not an official website of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not endorsed, sponsored, or maintained by any legal entity used by Jehovah's Witnesses. We are a pro-JW community maintained by brothers and sisters around the world. We expect all community members to be active publishers in their congregations, therefore, please do not apply for membership if you are not currently one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

×
×
  • Create New...

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 22.12.4 (changelog)