Just Accidental?

[gnostic]

I have to agree with you there, but then I am not one bit interested in "religion" for its own sake. I see no "religion" in the creation account, nor was there a long list of "do's" and "don't's".....it was intended to be a relatively peaceful and happy co-existence of man with the task of caretaker in this world, but without a knowledge of evil. I love the simplicity of that....it is humans who made things complex. It is they who invented religion and made gods for themselves who strangely had the same flaws as they did and justified doing "inhuman" things to please them.

Sorry, but I don't much about the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, so I don't know who found your religion, but isn't your religion invented by people?

Your God didn't create Jehovah's Witnesses, men did...or whoever was your JW founder(s).

Your God didn't translate your version of the bible (the so-called "Watch Tower Bible" or more precisely New World Translation, NWT), men did.

The sources to your bible translations are man-made. The OT in NWT, come from the Biblia Hebraica is based on the Leningrad Codex of the Masoretic Text, with some supplements from the Septuagint and other translations...man-made. The NT relied on the Westcott-Hort, which based mostly on the Vaticanus Codex and Sinaiticus Codex, with supplements from other fragments, and the Vulgate...all written, copied, and edited by men, not God.

Are you getting the picture here? There is nothing special about JW, except that only its followers think it is special.

You have nothing but disdain for other Christian sects, and yet JW is just another sect, with just as questionable past and present as other sects.

 

[Deeje]

Nit-pcking is often at the heart of understanding. There are *at least* 22 different concepts for species that are distinct, from biospecies (the most often used), to cladospecis, to morphospecies, to phenospecies.

Like I said, most people use the biospecies: interbreeding naturally occurring populations separated from other such.

Seriously....who needs a science degree to understand the difference between Biblical "kinds"......between an insect and a bird? Or a land dwelling creature and a marine creature?....a tree and a shrub? The Genesis "kinds" were basic to the understanding of humans at the time of writing. When exploration of the natural world began, (due to their natural curiosity) men started to appreciate what was within those "kinds" and how they were all interconnected into the earth's eco-systems, all perfectly designed habitats for each creature....each reproducing replicas of themselves without direct intervention from their Maker. The earth and everything on it was meant to be self sustaining with recycling taking place without any deliberate action on the part of the creatures used in the process. This is how I see creation....designed down to the last detail. You seem to see things in a completely opposite direction.....that the habitats created the creatures. Who created the habitats?

 

[Deeje]

Sorry, but I don't much about the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, so I don't know who found your religion, but isn't your religion invented by people?

Your God didn't create Jehovah's Witnesses, men did...or whoever was your JW founder(s).

Your God didn't translate your version of the bible (the so-called "Watch Tower Bible" or more precisely New World Translation, NWT), men did.

The sources to your bible translations are man-made. The OT in NWT, come from the Biblia Hebraica is based on the Leningrad Codex of the Masoretic Text, with some supplements from the Septuagint and other translations...man-made. The NT relied on the Westcott-Hort, which based mostly on the Vaticanus Codex and Sinaiticus Codex, with supplements from other fragments, and the Vulgate...all written, copied, and edited by men, not God.

Are you getting the picture here? There is nothing special about JW, except that only its followers think it is special.

You have nothing but disdain for other Christian sects, and yet JW is just another sect, with just as questionable past and present as other sects.

What has that tirade got to do with this topic? Please try to stay on track. If you want to bash JW's go somewhere else and do it.

 

[gnostic]

He's not a poser....nor are his designs unsubstantiated...evidence of design is everywhere in creation.

You are st####, aren't you?

If you look at every other physical science or life science or mathematics, the evidences are not about "who", Deeje. It is all about

• "what" it is?
• "what" we can learn from it?
• "how" it work?
• "how" it can be used?

It is never about "who?".

And science required evidences for all the "what" and "how" questions.

Creationists, like yourself, are the ones who bring in the "who" in the limelight, but never have any evidence for the real existence of this "Creator" God as the "who".

If science required evidences for what and how, then creationists should providences evidences for the "who". Why should only science provide evidences, and creationism don't.

It is clear to me, that creationism isn't science, don't use science or scientific evidences.

You are just projecting your very biased belief that God is involved in nature. That's just conjectures and your personal opinions. No evidences are involved in these presumptions...in fact, there are no logic involved too.

All those photos you have posted and shown are just pictures of different animals, but reveal absolutely nothing about God, and certainly not as Designer, nor that of the Creator.

Those are photos of animals existing, not God existing.

You need to present better evidences than the ones you have posted, because those photos have no context as to "who" created them. All we have are your silly and unscientific conjectures and assumptions.

 

[osgart]

anyone else have interesting conjectures? or do we need constant empiricism.

I didn't know there was a trial.

some people's conjecture is actually their evidence.

what would it take for an naturalist to admit their is design in nature?

yikes

 

[gnostic]

What has that tirade got to do with this topic? Please try to stay on track. If you want to bash JW's go somewhere else and do it.

Hey, you were the one who was trashing other Christian groups, when your JW are doing exactly the same things. You say that man created religion:

it is humans who made things complex. It is they who invented religion and made gods for themselves who strangely had the same flaws as they did and justified doing "inhuman" things to please them.

And what is JW, if it isn't man-made religion?

You really are arrogant and self-centred.

 

[Jose Fly]

What are we talking about here?

So, yes...lets be honest here.

You Goggle "foraminifera", go to the Wiki page, and scan it for anything you can find to use as an excuse to not have to deal with the actual data.

This ridiculously obvious behavior is indicative of the root religious and psychological issue here.

My beliefs as JW come from many years of study which included a very close scrutiny of evolutionary science.

How can that be, if when you're presented with papers published in the scientific journals, you complain that the material is beyond your level of understanding?

Would you like to share with us exactly what this "close scrutiny of evolutionary science" involved, including citations to the material you read?

I don't have to do anything against my will.

It's not that it's against your will, it's that the emotional and social cost of leaving the Jehovah's Witnesses is too high. You've admitted that being a JW means you can't compromise on this issue, which means one can't be an "evolutionist" and a Jehovah's Witness at the same time. So if you were to ever acknowledge any of the material we post as valid, you would at the very least be doing some serious damage to the status of your faith in your life, and at the worst, leaving it altogether.

The level of effects that would have on your emotional state and social status are hard to overestimate, aren't they? I mean.....surely you're not saying your faith is something you can easily cast aside without much in the way of consequences, right?

Neither do you. So this statement assumes that science has something remotely convincing to show me......you have produced nothing to date that is even close to convincing in any way....just the opposite in fact.

Well of course. Given the above, "evidence that would convince Deeje of evolution" cannot exist....it is impossible. If it were even possible, it'd also be possible that some day someone might show it to you. And then what would you do?

 

[Deeje]

You Goggle "foraminifera", go to the Wiki page, and scan it for anything you can find to use as an excuse to not have to deal with the actual data.

I Goggle a lot actually...its my favorite thing to do.....

This ridiculously obvious behavior is indicative of the root religious and psychological issue here.

Why is it ridiculous? I find the Wiki explanations are easy to understand generally. Google takes me straight to them.
You have a problem with Wiki? I don't write them, I just post them. If you have trouble with the quoted material, you need to take it up with them. They just repeat what they are told by those who are supposed to know. Have you found them to be in error? Perhaps they need your services to correct them....?

How can that be, if when you're presented with papers published in the scientific journals, you complain that the material is beyond your level of understanding?

I said the language was beyond my level of understanding, not the concept....which is rather child-like actually.

Without the jargon, it doesn't sound very scientific at all.
It sounds like something you'd find in a children's book.

It's not that it's against your will, it's that the emotional and social cost of leaving the Jehovah's Witnesses is too high. You've admitted that being a JW means you can't compromise on this issue, which means one can't be an "evolutionist" and a Jehovah's Witness at the same time. So if you were to ever acknowledge any of the material we post as valid, you would at the very least be doing some serious damage to the status of your faith in your life, and at the worst, leaving it altogether.

You crack me up.

I chose to become a JW because I rejected the rubbish science was trying to push on the public without any proof that it ever happened the way they said. I rejected YE creationism too for the same reason. I found a middle ground that does not fight with science and attributes all creation to an Intelligent Designer whom I call Jehovah.

I reject this concept completely.....

...because its make believe. You might have descended from apes, but I didn't.

The level of effects that would have on your emotional state and social status are hard to overestimate, aren't they? I mean.....surely you're not saying your faith is something you can easily cast aside without much in the way of consequences, right?

I would have to have very good reasons to set aside my faith, but to date I have never found any. You assume that if I knew "the truth about evolution" that I would naturally come over to your side....? I was on your side once.....it was highly overrated. Evolution has holes you can drive a Mack Truck through. No thanks.

Well of course. Given the above, "evidence that would convince Deeje of evolution" cannot exist....it is impossible. If it were even possible, it'd also be possible that some day someone might show it to you. And then what would you do?

No.....not that it CANNOT exist.....real evidence for macro-evolution DOES NOT exist. Not one thing that has ever been shown to me has proven evolution to be true....just the opposite. It reinforced my conviction that its a fairy story of even greater proportions than you believe creation to be.

The fact is....SCIENCE HAS NO FACTS THAT PROVE EVOLUTION EVER HAPPENED.

 

[Polymath257]

Seriously....who needs a science degree to understand the difference between Biblical "kinds"......between an insect and a bird?

Let's be very clear here. Do you consider all insects to be a single 'kind'? Really? So a lady bug is the same 'kind' as a dragon fly? Both of those are the same 'kind' as a butterfly?

Do you really consider all birds to be the same 'kind'? So an ostrich is the same 'kind' as a sparrow? And both of those are the same 'kind' as a hawk?

Sorry, but this alone shows the intellectual vacuum of creationism. To say that all insects are the same 'kind' while that humans and chimps are not is so laughable that it is truthfully insane.

Or a land dwelling creature and a marine creature?....a tree and a shrub? The Genesis "kinds" were basic to the understanding of humans at the time of writing.

Exactly. They were based on crude observations that do not reflect the underlying biology. Not all sea creatures are related. Whales and dolphins, for example, are mammals. Shrubs are simply a type of smaller, bushier tree.

When exploration of the natural world began, (due to their natural curiosity) men started to appreciate what was within those "kinds" and how they were all interconnected into the earth's eco-systems, all perfectly designed habitats for each creature....each reproducing replicas of themselves without direct intervention from their Maker. The earth and everything on it was meant to be self sustaining with recycling taking place without any deliberate action on the part of the creatures used in the process. This is how I see creation....designed down to the last detail. You seem to see things in a completely opposite direction.....that the habitats created the creatures. Who created the habitats?

Not 'who', what. plate tectonics, volcanoes, water, latitude, etc. Many things determine habitats.[/QUOTE]

 

[Polymath257]

Seriously....who needs a science degree to understand the difference between Biblical "kinds"......between an insect and a bird? Or a land dwelling creature and a marine creature?....a tree and a shrub? The Genesis "kinds" were basic to the understanding of humans at the time of writing. When exploration of the natural world began, (due to their natural curiosity) men started to appreciate what was within those "kinds" and how they were all interconnected into the earth's eco-systems, all perfectly designed habitats for each creature....each reproducing replicas of themselves without direct intervention from their Maker. The earth and everything on it was meant to be self sustaining with recycling taking place without any deliberate action on the part of the creatures used in the process. This is how I see creation....designed down to the last detail. You seem to see things in a completely opposite direction.....that the habitats created the creatures. Who created the habitats?

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why is it ridiculous?

I pointed out the virtually complete fossil record of foraminifera and how it shows evolutionary change over time, including Darwinian gradualism, the evolution of multiple new species, ancestor-descendant relationships, and evolutionary dead ends.

You responded with "On the Wiki page for foraminifera, they use the word "likely". So there!".

In what world is that a rational response? Exactly what did you think you had accomplished? Because it really, really looks like you had no actual rebuttal to the data I cited but couldn't admit it either, so you came up with a very, very lame excuse to not have to deal with it. Like I said.....very obvious.

I said the language was beyond my level of understanding

How can you claim to have studied something if you don't understand the language in which it's communicated?

And you dodged another question. Again, when you undertook your "close scrutiny of evolutionary science" what specific material did you read? Please give citations.

I chose to become a JW because I rejected the rubbish science was trying to push on the public without any proof that it ever happened the way they said.

Are you saying that you became a JW specifically because of science? IOW, you had already studied and rejected much of science and only after that you became a JW?

I would have to have very good reasons to set aside my faith, but to date I have never found any.

You're side-stepping the issue again. This isn't about the reasons for setting your faith aside, it's about the consequences. Be honest....if you were to leave the Jehovah's Witnesses, you would face some very real emotional and social consequences, wouldn't you?

Not one thing that has ever been shown to me has proven evolution to be true

Of course not. If that were to happen, it would put you in a very uncomfortable position, wouldn't it?

 

[Sapiens]

Without the jargon, it doesn't sound very scientific at all.
It sounds like something you'd find in a children's book.

In his classic book, The Careful Writer, Theodore Bernstein states (p. 237):

... by no means to say that all inside talk, all jargon, is pretentious and useless. On the contrary, most of it is highly necessary. Those in specialized fields have a need to communicate with one another in precise terms and with an economy of expression. A single word will often convey to a colleague what would require a sentence, a paragraph, or perhaps an even longer description to convey to a layman. The fact that the layman does not comprehend the single word does not indict it for use within its proper sphere...
​

Creationists illustrate this every time they attempt to deal with terms like "theory." But it is actually even more insidious ... the misunderstanding of technical terms is often willful and dishonest. Deeje has repeatedly stated that she is proud of her ignorance ... I find that to just be "playing dumb," a cover that permits her to continue to willfully misunderstand technical terms.

 

[Deeje]

Let's be very clear here. Do you consider all insects to be a single 'kind'? Really? So a lady bug is the same 'kind' as a dragon fly? Both of those are the same 'kind' as a butterfly?

Do you really consider all birds to be the same 'kind'? So an ostrich is the same 'kind' as a sparrow? And both of those are the same 'kind' as a hawk?

Sorry, but this alone shows the intellectual vacuum of creationism. To say that all insects are the same 'kind' while that humans and chimps are not is so laughable that it is truthfully insane.

Do you have comprehension issues? When did I say that? Basic "kinds" before man discovered the more intricate details of the natural world was not rocket science. Birds were a "kind" (feathers, wings, ability to fly, nest building etc.) Land animals were a "kind" (terrestrial, usually four footed with fur and an appetite for vegetation.) Fish were a "kind" (aquatic, water breathers, who inhabited the vast oceans.) Species within those basic kinds was a project for human discovery as we are designed to learn and to study and understand the world around us. Those basics were built on over time as knowledge increased and men created the means to study nature close up with microscopes and more sophisticated technology to enhance understanding. Those in the animal kingdom have no such propensity. To this day, their limitations both intellectually and physically, make them inferior to man. If evolution is true, why are there no other species who have evolved in any way close to us? The gulf between man and any earthly creature (including apes) is an unbridgeable chasm. Designed to be that way.

Exactly. They were based on crude observations that do not reflect the underlying biology. Not all sea creatures are related. Whales and dolphins, for example, are mammals. Shrubs are simply a type of smaller, bushier tree.

No kidding.....
We as a species were designed to teach our children the things we ourselves were taught. The Bible says that God himself educated Adam in the basics and then allowed him the privilege of educating his mate. They in turn would educate their children.....some in the animal kingdom also educate their young in survival skills, but by and large these creatures are programmed by instinct. They operate by a wisdom that is programmed into their DNA....not knowing 'why' they do anything, just performing the tasks that ensure the preservation of their species. All of the creatures chosen to share life on this planet with man, are still here. The ones that have become extinct in recent times have mainly been the victims of man-made circumstances, like habitat destruction and pollution. Greedy humans have a lot to answer for. Misguided science has a lot to answer for too.

Not 'who', what. plate tectonics, volcanoes, water, latitude, etc. Many things determine habitats.

Habitats are not accidents. Vegetation is not an accident. None of the above will give us food or flowers or perfume or beauty. It is no accident that trees provide our oxygen supply and we provide the Co2 that they need to survive. It is no accident that the mixture of gasses in our atmosphere are perfect for creating fire. Any more oxygen and every spark would cause an explosion.
The human brain is no accident. Ability to see, feel, smell, touch and taste the natural world are not accidental either. You guys take so much for granted. You see past all the ingenuity and attribute these amazing things to the blind forces of chance.

The 'blindness' of the evolutionary view is incredible to those of us who see the Creator's handiwork as nothing short of millions of miracles....all glossed over by belief in an accidental world with no designer, no purpose and no future.
You can have that view if you choose it....I cannot. Everything in me wants to thank my Creator for every one of those miracles....and the miracles I have yet to discover.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you have comprehension issues? When did I say that? Basic "kinds" before man discovered the more intricate details of the natural world was not rocket science. Birds were a "kind" (feathers, wings, ability to fly, nest building etc.) Land animals were a "kind" (terrestrial, usually four footed with fur and an appetite for vegetation.) Fish were a "kind" (aquatic, water breathers, who inhabited the vast oceans.)

And what we have found is that those simple classifications are often wrong. The naive viewpoints are usually wrong in details.

So, there is more variation between types of insects than there is between humans and chimps. If the insects are the same 'kind' then humans and chimps are the same 'kind'. In fact, all mammals would be the same kind!

Species within those basic kinds was a project for human discovery as we are designed to learn and to study and understand the world around us. Those basics were built on over time as knowledge increased and men created the means to study nature close up with microscopes and more sophisticated technology to enhance understanding. Those in the animal kingdom have no such propensity. To this day, their limitations both intellectually and physically, make them inferior to man. If evolution is true, why are there no other species who have evolved in any way close to us? The gulf between man and any earthly creature (including apes) is an unbridgeable chasm. Designed to be that way.
r.

Humans have larger brains for their size than any other animal. In particular, the areas in our brains controlling language are much larger than in any other animal. And it is language ability more than any other single thing that has allowed us to progress out of purely genetic evolution and into cultural evolution. It is language more than any other single thing that defines us as a species. It is what allows us to teach our children in ways simply not available to other animals.

Now, other animals *do* have basic language skills. But none have progressed as much as us.

But a cheetah would make the claim that humans are very poor runners. What makes cheetahs special is not what makes us special. But no other animal has progressed to running as fast as a cheetah. That doesn't make it an 'unbridgeable gap between cheetahs and other animals. Neither do our language skills amount to an unbridgeable gap' between us and the other great apes.

 

[Deeje]

And what we have found is that those simple classifications are often wrong. The naive viewpoints are usually wrong in details.

So, there is more variation between types of insects than there is between humans and chimps. If the insects are the same 'kind' then humans and chimps are the same 'kind'. In fact, all mammals would be the same kind!



Humans have larger brains for their size than any other animal. In particular, the areas in our brains controlling language are much larger than in any other animal. And it is language ability more than any other single thing that has allowed us to progress out of purely genetic evolution and into cultural evolution. It is language more than any other single thing that defines us as a species. It is what allows us to teach our children in ways simply not available to other animals.

Now, other animals *do* have basic language skills. But none have progressed as much as us.

But a cheetah would make the claim that humans are very poor runners. What makes cheetahs special is not what makes us special. But no other animal has progressed to running as fast as a cheetah. That doesn't make it an 'unbridgeable gap between cheetahs and other animals. Neither do our language skills amount to an unbridgeable gap' between us and the other great apes.

You will just never get it....and the Bible explains why.....

The apostle Paul wrote....

1 Corinthians 2:12-16:
"Now we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit that is from God, so that we might know the things that have been kindly given us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit, as we explain spiritual matters with spiritual words.
14 But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. 15 However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. 16 For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ."

You think science has its own language and only scientists understand it? The same applies to us. Spiritual words need spiritual comprehension. You don't understand our language either.

 

[Deeje]

Creationists illustrate this every time they attempt to deal with terms like "theory."

You mean the necessity of changing the meaning of the word to indicate that evolution isn't really just an unproven hypothesis, but its actual fact, despite there being no real, hard evidence......?
You mean that "theory"?

But it is actually even more insidious ... the misunderstanding of technical terms is often willful and dishonest.

You make me smile

.....I know you don't mean to....but you see, I don't "misunderstand" the terminology.....I just don't speak the "technical terms" of the "inside" language.
I need an interpreter like a lot of other people who converse in languages they don't understand. But when someone tries to convey the simple truth behind the big words, we find that hiding in the jargon is a load of nonsense. When evolution is explained in simple terms, it is actually quite childish. It requires more faith to believe in that endless series of fortunate accidents than it does to believe in the deliberate acts of a powerful, Intelligent Designer....whom science has yet to discover.

Deeje has repeatedly stated that she is proud of her ignorance ... I find that to just be "playing dumb," a cover that permits her to continue to willfully misunderstand technical terms.

I am not ignorant just because I don't speak your language.....I am proud of the fact that I see through what you obviously cannot. I don't "play dumb" for anyone. I simply see through the rhetoric and high sounding terminology to the simple truth.
"Simple" is obviously missing from the scientific vocabulary....like its somehow insulting.

 

[Polymath257]

You will just never get it....and the Bible explains why.....

The apostle Paul wrote....

1 Corinthians 2:12-16:
"Now we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit that is from God, so that we might know the things that have been kindly given us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit, as we explain spiritual matters with spiritual words.
14 But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. 15 However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. 16 For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ."

You think science has its own language and only scientists understand it? The same applies to us. Spiritual words need spiritual comprehension. You don't understand our language either.

Do you really think that quoting from your book of myths supports your case? If so, you have a LOT to learn.

In any case, please present some hard, objective evidence for this 'spiritual' aspect of reality. Make sure it is public and can be verified even by non-believers. Until then, yes, it *is* foolishness.

 

[Jose Fly]

All you have to do is ask a creationist a few questions that get to the real core of the issue, and they run.

 

[Deeje]

Do you really think that quoting from your book of myths supports your case? If so, you have a LOT to learn.

You make me smile too

.....as if presenting scripture to you and your ilk will move you in any way? (of course I wish it would, but I won't hold my breath)

I provide scripture for the undecided so that they can see for themselves that God predicted the likes of proud scientists who are determined to eradicate God from the consciousness of others. It won't happen. Spirituality is inborn but not all have it nurtured, so it never develops. Others have the opposite problem, superstitious religions are forced on them from childhood so that they become afraid of their gods or spirit ancestors. The God of the Bible encourages neither of those extremes, but foretells that only a relative "few" will measure up.

Just because you reject the idea of an Intelligent Designer doesn't make him disappear....in fact the Bible says all will account to him, whether they believe in him or not. I accept that this is fair considering that all have equal opportunity to make up their own minds about everything as free willed beings. We therefore determine our own destiny.

In any case, please present some hard, objective evidence for this 'spiritual' aspect of reality. Make sure it is public and can be verified even by non-believers. Until then, yes, it *is* foolishness.

I have as much "hard objective evidence" for my beliefs as you do. The Bible doesn't get more "public" than it already is and neither do those who preach its message. The truth cannot be "verified" for "non-believers" because you need spiritual comprehension to understand and accept any of it.
Just as you need special abilities and education to comprehend your language of science, we do too.

Its only "foolish" to those who don't speak the 'special' language. We don't speak yours.....and you don't speak ours. What is left to say?
No point in

....is there?

 

[Deeje]

In what world is that a rational response? Exactly what did you think you had accomplished? Because it really, really looks like you had no actual rebuttal to the data I cited but couldn't admit it either, so you came up with a very, very lame excuse to not have to deal with it. Like I said.....very obvious.

O look...another assumption based on your interpretation of what I said. You science guys are so athletic when it comes to jumping to wrong conclusions...any wonder you swallow the whole evolution saga. If jumping to conclusions was an Olympic event, you would all be gold medalists.

How can you claim to have studied something if you don't understand the language in which it's communicated?

The same way I would understand if a doctor was to describe a medical procedure in layman's terms. If you can't relate something in simple language, then you are hiding behind the jargon.

And you dodged another question. Again, when you undertook your "close scrutiny of evolutionary science" what specific material did you read? Please give citations.

Go back over the thread and see whatever was quoted to me as "proof" of your beliefs. They were no such thing.
You want "specific" material when the net is full of such articles? Seriously? Pick whatever you like.

Are you saying that you became a JW specifically because of science? IOW, you had already studied and rejected much of science and only after that you became a JW?

In my youth, I studied evolution on a level that most people do. We all start with the basics and move on when we are convinced that something is true. The more I investigated the amazing complexities of nature and saw deliberate design in everything, the more it convinced me that macro-evolution was rubbish. How many fortunate accidents does it take to produce all the lifeforms we see on earth? I came to see that evolutionists are the ones who live in Fantasyland.

I was raised as a Christian but had left the church due to many issues....I wanted to study evolution for myself. I couldn't accept the church's version of creation because it was not in keeping with what science knew to be true. JW's were the only ones who had a reasonable attitude towards the Genesis account. Their description of creation was totally in keeping with both science and the Bible. The more I studied, the more I had an overwhelming sense that I had at last found the truth.
I went looking for the Intelligent Designer....but as it turns out, he found me.

You're side-stepping the issue again. This isn't about the reasons for setting your faith aside, it's about the consequences. Be honest....if you were to leave the Jehovah's Witnesses, you would face some very real emotional and social consequences, wouldn't you?

What is this that you keep harping on about? I have been a JW by choice for over 40 years. No one in all that time has produced any solid evidence that macro-evolution ever happened. They provide proof of adaptation, for which I have no issues since it can be demonstrated in a lab.......macro-evolution on the other hand, cannot be proven at all. It is a "belief" based on nothing but assumptions about what "might have" taken place when no one was around to document a single thing. Guesswork cannot replace solid evidence and you don't have any.

I am not at the mercy of my emotions....logic is my first port of call. Religion based on emotion is not a good guide for anything. The truth stands alone and speaks to both the heart and the mind. It did that for me.

Now, if I thought for one moment that JW's did not teach the truth, nothing would keep me there. I am more concerned with truth than I am with "religion". My faith in an Intelligent Designer comes after many many years of study and personal research.....that never fails to reinforce my conviction that I found the truth all those years ago. I have never been disappointed in my Creator.