Why do people deny evolution?

Russell began his Bible Students International ithin the growing Seventh Day Adventist when Dr Miller and Rev Russell (who was preahing AGAINST the existence of a hell) which conforms with the KJV.
He was quite a salesman and his biography claimed that he had
similar characteristics as a Billy Graham of his day. he had a failing when he predicted the date of the second coming and God didnt get the memo.

Michael Jackson was a Jehovah's Witness, and that's still the least weird thing about him.

so thats why he wore the one glove.

That, and not leaving fingerprints.

Yes, forever, right here, on this planet, with their vision of society strictly enforced or a mind reprogramming to like it that way, depending on who you ask. Which is very much like the ideal of the American Dream.
Which is close to my idea of Hell. Kind of like living in Stepford.

Like I told you already, I could leave any time without regrets.

Well it's not a theology thread but you have to take opportunity when it presents itself and even the atheists are fully into it now so why not.

Question: Where in the Bible (or other religious teaching) do you get the idea that Jesus is taking those in 'grace' to heaven?

It isn't in the book as far as I can see. They may rise to meet him in the air but the story in the book says Jesus isn't on his way to Heaven, he's on his way down to Earth to lead those in a state of grace for a thousand years. Most 'churches' tend to ignore that part of the story.

It actually makes a lot of sense to me. Many believers I've met would blow my head off with a celestial canon soon after I arrived in Heaven if it weren't for a thousand years of teaching first by the Master.

Any would be demagogue should by now, after 2000 years, have sense enough not to make such predictions. But, waiting for the second coming and claiming it is imminent have been the favorite christian indoor sport since the first century of the common era.

You'd think so, but evidence is to the contrary. When these Doomsday cults predict the end of the world and nothing happens membership actually goes up.

God knows why, maybe they believe the horseshit about miscalculations or God giving them a reprieve, but whatever it is, membership goes up.

We are living in the 1000 year age right now. (The church age) If you die a believer that needs further education to rid yourself of wrong thinking you go to purgatory. ( but purgatory can be avoided by receiving the Eucharist in a perfect state of grace and then not sinning before you die. )

One of the main ‘foundational pilliars’ for a false teaching like Jehovah witness beliefs is the Begetting vs. making. (If one ever comes knocking, challenge them with this)

In other words, They teach/claim Jesus is an Angel. A CReated being.

Yet, the biblical teaching reveals that Jesus is the Only Begotten son of God.

Fish beget fish.
Birds beget birds.
Humans beget humans.
Etc.
So, what does a Divine being beget?(‘the father’) An angel? Obviously not. Obviously right?

They have altered the very definition of Begetting😳
https://www.gotquestions.org/only-begotten-son.html

And then, because this has been ‘altered’ they then begin to examine and interpret the rest of the evidence (scripture) through that foundational lens!! Misinterpreting and twisting other scriptures to build onto their foundation.

Likewise with evolutionists.
They believe That abiogenesis is a logical foundational conclusion, and then interpret other evidence around them through that lens! (Ie. fossils, geology, adaptation/micro-evolution, dating techniques etc.)

What about this say, what about that, how do you interpret this and that....all stemming from their foundation. It never ends, especially if They keep the ‘blinders’ on their choice.

Crush the foundation I say😉crush it💪No compromise!

One of the main ‘foundational pilliars’ for a false teaching like Jehovah witness beliefs is the Begetting vs. making. (If one ever comes knocking, challenge them with this)

In other words, They teach/claim Jesus is an Angel. A CReated being.

Yet, the biblical teaching reveals that Jesus is the Only Begotten son of God.

Dogs beget dogs.
Birds beget birds.
Humans beget humans.
Etc.
Dogs create holes.
Birds create nests.
Humans create tables.
So, what does a Divine being beget?(‘the father’) An angel? Obviously not. Obviously right? Divine creates angelic beings, human beings etc.

They have altered the very definition of Begetting😳
https://www.gotquestions.org/only-begotten-son.html

And then, because this has been ‘altered’ they then begin to examine and interpret the rest of the evidence (scripture) through that foundational lens!! Misinterpreting and twisting other scriptures to build onto their foundation.

Likewise with evolutionists.
They believe That abiogenesis is a logical foundational conclusion, and then interpret other evidence around them through that lens! (Ie. fossils, geology, adaptation/micro-evolution, dating techniques etc.)

What about this say, what about that, how do you interpret this and that....all stemming from their foundation. It never ends, especially if They keep the ‘blinders’ on Sad their choice.

Crush the foundation I say😉crush it💪No compromise!

kinda wacky reasoning there H&G. What about all the genera and species of birds, canids felids" etc.

Is a lion the same "kind" as a Smilodon?? Evidence abounds that says they interbred in the PLEISTOCENE??


Science is orderly, easily understood with no "myths of an intercession, a flood, or a Tower of Babel.


"That "old time religion" only lasted as long as it took or laws to put it in its place, and NOT in classroom science.
If you "believe otherwise" there is a huge burden of proof to show us where it is. Forensic evidence would be the best, have any??

I thought so.

I may have posted this earlier, but I'm putting it in again just in case there are newcomers to this website and thread:

I think of biological evolution as a discovery by Darwin and Wallace and not a theory or a hypothesis. Theories abound as to how the history of biological evolution worked and works, and it's a unfolding process, but it's silly and reactionary to argue about whether or not biological evolution occurs, because that horse has left the barn.

Individuals must also evolve spiritually, and it's stifling and killing to the spirit of personal development to hold onto past, anachronistic beliefs.

Quote:’but it's silly and reactionary to argue about whether or not biological evolution occurs, because that horse has left the barn.’

So, life evolves from non-life? (Abiogenesis) That is observable? That cats can turn into dogs. That horse has left the barn?
My point exactly.
Not even close.

JWs teach Jesus was a created being, not even close either. But on and on they go, with all their interpretations of the evidence.

Sounds like Catholic dogma. I can't find any thing like that in scripture. It is written that the thousand years begins with Christ's (physical) return and that he would lead during that time. Where is he? Where are the 'dead in Christ' that arose at his return? It is also written that during that thousand years Satan would be bound away and unable to influence anything during that time.

Do you really think this present time fits that description? If this is as good as it gets I'd cancel my subscription.

So get to it. Explain your alternative theory to evolution in terms of your statistical approach where you dismiss Evolution because of its improbability. Surely, you can demonstrate that your theory is more plausible.

ID is not so much an alternative theory to Evolution as it is an examination of it. Obviously, I find the evidence of 'all natural' evolution lacking, as in - there is none. It is all assumption built on the fossil record. No one has ever observed a new specie or even a new protein emerge as an accidental mutation other than a very few experiments that demonstrated destruction of an existing bacterial function.

As I said earlier, if you can show me a new, or even an existing protein emerging by random chance I would reconsider my opinion of Evolution. No one has taken me up on even this (relatively) simple challenge. A new animal body plan calls for hundreds of new proteins. If you can't come up with an explanation for where that information came from, you don't have a viable theory. ID merely says that information only comes from one source - an intelligent actor.

No one has ever observed a new specie or even a new protein emerge as a result of an intelligent actor. It's all assumption built on belief in this actor.

So, how does ID stand up to your statistical approach.

Again, there is nothing youve posited tht can even be evidenced. In fact, its quite the opposite. YOU DO accept the fact of genetic variation within species and things likesexual polymorphism?

Theres an example of just one way that "new DNA" is made available. ONE GENERATION, ya have a baby, then a second, th two are different genetically.


Doing studies on Lake Malawy and Connecticut River Cichlids clearly shows that significant evolutionary hanges have occured within 350 years or the Connecticut River cihids (about 0.1% change in genetics has resulted in amazing volutionary hanges .In the Lake Mlawy cichlids, the genetic hanges are signifiantly more, in proportion to the longer time length for the development of the new species (about 50 K years).
So your "Theres never any new DNA is BS because you can se that in your own family.



As far as WVOLUTION bing only based on a fossil record that is "flawed" is a typical IDer statement made pretty much from ignorance. Lts see where evolution iseasily deduced
. Look at tgese;
1 HOMOLOGOUS ANATOMY--Species repeat shared anatomical structures that are convincingly "derived:-bird wings, monkey arms, whales flippers all have the same "Hand feature beneath the skin"

2 MOLECULAR BIOLOGY--Bouvet Island (Antarctica) Stickelbacks ("Icefish") have, by one new proteins, been able to increase their "antifreeze" in their bloods. This is done mostly by sending the two genes that code for hemoglobin to the extinction bin. (The genes still exist as "pseudogene" but are totally turned off and another gene that codes for a sugar "antifreeze develop).

3. EMBRTOLOGY-Whtther you deny it or not, the human embryo has gill slits that become our inner ear nd jaw structures

4BIODIVERSITY-Global distribution of unique but related species.

5HOMOLOGOUS GENES--Many species have different genes that code for insulin and blood clotting

6BIOGOLOGIC DIASPORAE WITH EVOLUTION-- Animals that were evolved before Pngea split up remain closely related specie-wise even though they are on different areas of the map. Animals that evolved AFTER Pangea SPlit off are much more diverse from each other, and their genic compliment vary more deeply . Along Wallaces line to the SE, all native mammalian life is made up of marsupials that have filled in most all available nicehes (vegetarian v carnivorous etc )

7. FOSSILS--One can see that fossils that appear derived occur almost entirely

in different stratigraphic times


8. GENETIC DIVERSITY (lets just look at humans ). Diverse populations maintain variations in their genomes that are "set" based on their native ranges. There are presently identified 326 Million gene variants sequenced from th world's human populations. AND, the variance INCREASES in direct correlation with DISTANCE from Sub-Saharan Africa. Recall such things as "Clines and Haplogroups"???


Your requirement to debunk isnt working very well, You are on the cusp of running out of any argument for your ide (ND its all because you have amassed a paucity of any evidence to even make a case)

I think Ive posted rejoiners to your "challenge" many times. You jut ignore by saying Im not on topic.

Well how bout them stickleback Icefish. The Antarctic expanded frigid zone began about 100000, Y Bp. The Icefish's precursors (which, by the way had moved and now flourish in the waters around S Argentina. Thos fish have been sequenced as have the Icefish. The genetic changes involve "Turning off two genes that code for hemoglobin" and adding a gene that codes for the "ANTIFREEZE.
Id see this as a 'natural genetic adaptation to an environmental change" wouldnt you??

Gene becomes a pseudogene (but its still there on the chromosome just in an "off" position). So the new gene apparently became dominant in the last 100 K yers.


Thats just 1 theres waaay more . Science may not know all the answers but these grad students are busy pursuing their careers.