Why are Jehovah's Witnesses reluctant to discuss their faith?

[Dan From Smithville]

No, it doesn’t.

I’ll try to explain, but I doubt you’ll understand it.
When A&E chose to rebel, Jehovah removed (most of) His protection from them. That also applied to the Earth. Remember God saying that “thorns and thistles” would affect Adam’s farming?
Jehovah put the systems in place, like the water cycle, etc., to care for the Earth, but these systems get out of hand sometimes. Same w/ living organisms.
Jehovah’s spirit does not ‘permeate this planet’ as it did in the beginning, but it will once again. Isaiah 11:6-9 reveals that.

You say no it doesn't and then you go on to explain that is what God did. Was this a mistake or do you really mean to produce this dichotomy?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, it doesn’t.

I’ll try to explain, but I doubt you’ll understand it.
When A&E chose to rebel, Jehovah removed (most of) His protection from them. That also applied to the Earth. Remember God saying that “thorns and thistles” would affect Adam’s farming?
Jehovah put the systems in place, like the water cycle, etc., to care for the Earth, but these systems get out of hand sometimes. Same w/ living organisms.
Jehovah’s spirit does not ‘permeate this planet’ as it did in the beginning, but it will once again. Isaiah 11:6-9 reveals that.

You mentioned posting more evidence, but I do not know of any evidence that supports this view in any way that would make it scientific and not belief. Besides the Bible and your interpretation of the Bible, there is no evidence to support your interpretation. Not even over other interpretations.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is the way I have seen it offered. But additional questioning does not indicate that they actually understand what they are parroting.

Not exclusive to J and W brand creationists, but very common for the brand.

It is much the same as someone claiming decades of independent and informal research on evolution and then failing miserably to convey anything meaningful despite the expectation that such an amount of study should have provided that ability.
Pretty much. Orbit around sources that tell you what you want to hear and ignore sources that tell you differently or misrepresent what those sources are saying.

I also agree and have heard that statement from many creationists. It is puzzling why JW's do seem to avoid that admission. I am not sure what to make of it though. Clearly they believe their version of belief.

Scientists have various beliefs as to how life started. So which belief of scientists is correct?
Here are some theories as to how the first organisms said to be on the only known home life in the universe developed from -- the famous primordial soup:
1. Lightning may have provided the spark needed for life to begin.
2. Life began at deep-sea vents.
3. Life had a chilly start.
4. Understanding DNA
5. Simple origins. Instead of developing from complex molecules such as RNA, life might have begun with smaller molecules interacting with each other in cycles of reactions.
6. Brought here from outer space.

Last, but not least, the article explaining the various theories of scientists, ends up by saying: Oh, and if you thought all that was mysterious, consider this: Scientists admit they don't even have a good definition of life!
7 Theories on the Origin of Life

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Scientists have various beliefs as to how life started. So which belief of scientists is correct?
Here are some theories as to how the first organisms said to be on the only known home life in the universe developed from -- the famous primordial soup:
1. Lightning may have provided the spark needed for life to begin.
2. Life began at deep-sea vents.
3. Life had a chilly start.
4. Understanding DNA
5. Simple origins. Instead of developing from complex molecules such as RNA, life might have begun with smaller molecules interacting with each other in cycles of reactions.
6. Brought here from outer space.

Last, but not least, the article explaining the various theories of scientists, ends up by saying: Oh, and if you thought all that was mysterious, consider this: Scientists admit they don't even have a good definition of life!
7 Theories on the Origin of Life

This is ground that we have covered way too much for you to keep asking the same questions.

No one knows the origin of life. There are a number of hypotheses and a growing body of evidence, but not enough to fully test those hypotheses. Even if we do find one that can be accepted, we still do not know if that is the way that life formed on this planet.

I am not sure what number 4 means. What do you mean by understanding DNA.

Number 5 is behind many of the hypotheses as I understand them, and does not warrant separation into its own category.

Number 6 is possible, but it just moves the origin of life off the planet and does not provide an explanation to that origin. Just to life here.

We have some working definitions of life, but they are incomplete. They do not include something like viruses, that are biological, but under the definition of life that we have, do not qualify as living.

No one in science is claiming to have all the answers and no one claims that of science. If that were the case, we would have no need for science or further discussions. Since we would have the answers.

 

[YoursTrue]

You say no it doesn't and then you go on to explain that is what God did. Was this a mistake or do you really mean to produce this dichotomy?

I understood what Hockeycowboy said quite well. Not only that, I believe it. And -- what's true (but not in every persons mind), mankind is ruining the atmosphere. It hasn't taken that long to do that, in reality, considering the "millions of years" paleontologists have said mankind has been upon this earth. Fascinating article on climate change and disasters that follow:
Earth Day 2019: We're losing the war on climate change - CNN

 

[YoursTrue]

This is ground that we have covered way too much for you to keep asking the same questions.

No one knows the origin of life. There are a number of hypotheses and a growing body of evidence, but not enough to fully test those hypotheses. Even if we do find one that can be accepted, we still do not know if that is the way that life formed on this planet.

I am not sure what number 4 means. What do you mean by understanding DNA.

Number 5 is behind many of the hypotheses as I understand them, and does not warrant separation into its own category.

Number 6 is possible, but it just moves the origin of life off the planet and does not provide an explanation to that origin. Just to life here.

We have some working definitions of life, but they are incomplete. They do not include something like viruses, that are biological, but under the definition of life that we have, do not qualify as living.

No one in science is claiming to have all the answers and no one claims that of science. If that were the case, we would have no need for science or further discussions. Since we would have the answers.

If you read the article, perhaps you will agree with one or another. A point to remember, at least for me, is that given the millions of years that mankind is said to exist on this earth, it didn't take too long for them to get the earth to the point of probable oblivion, if continually left in the hands of man. Proof is in the pudding, as some would say. Just as HockeyCowboy said, God allowed the thorns and thistles to make life hard for Adam and Eve. Not all obviously would believe that. And this happened ostensibly from the Bible, even according to the vaguest of minds, not all that long ago. Remember, not everyone who claimed to be religious believed Jesus. And not all care or believe that the earth is in a perilous state due to climate pollution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientists have various beliefs as to how life started. So which belief of scientists is correct?
Here are some theories as to how the first organisms said to be on the only known home life in the universe developed from -- the famous primordial soup:
1. Lightning may have provided the spark needed for life to begin.

No, that is not the case. You probably misunderstand the Miller-Urey experiment.

2. Life began at deep-sea vents.

That is a possibility.

3. Life had a chilly start.

I would like to see your source.

4. Understanding DNA

What?

5. Simple origins. Instead of developing from complex molecules such as RNA, life might have begun with smaller molecules interacting with each other in cycles of reactions.

Yes, RNA had to come from somewhere.

6. Brought here from outer space.

Once again this is a case of creationists misunderstanding articles.

Last, but not least, the article explaining the various theories of scientists, ends up by saying: Oh, and if you thought all that was mysterious, consider this: Scientists admit they don't even have a good definition of life!
7 Theories on the Origin of Life

I see. You did not understand the source that you linked.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I understood what Hockeycowboy said quite well.

Really? He was asked this by @Jose Fly "I wonder....if what you say is true, doesn't that mean the "complex information" that allows pathogens to infect and cause disease were created by God?" He responded no, then went on to explain how it was "yes".

Not only that, I believe it.

You can believe whatever you like, but that is not science and you have no evidence to support that belief.

And -- what's true (but not in every persons mind), mankind is ruining the atmosphere.

I agree that our wanton abuse of resources is polluting our own environment.

It hasn't taken that long to do that, in reality, considering the "millions of years" paleontologists have said mankind has been upon this earth. Fascinating article on climate change and disasters that follow:
Earth Day 2019: We're losing the war on climate change - CNN

What does this have to do with the theory of evolution. Most of the damage we have enacted on our environment has taken place over the last 200 years and accelerated in the last 75 to 100 years. Previously, our population was not at the level it has reached and our technology was nowhere near what it is today. Damage we did to our environment prior to the last few hundred years was local and did not have the impact we have today.

I live near what was once a thriving Native American community of the Mississippian culture. It lasted for nearly 800 years in this region and was gone before Columbus was even born. The evidence indicates that it was a depletion of resources that lead to the decline and disappearance of this culture. But that was local and the area recovered over time until we came along.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you read the article, perhaps you will agree with one or another. A point to remember, at least for me, is that given the millions of years that mankind is said to exist on this earth,

300,000, not millions.

it didn't take too long for them to get the earth to the point of probable oblivion,

Rapid population growth gone unchecked coupled with increasing movement to new territory along with a proliferation of technology that enabled the first to steps.

if continually left in the hands of man. Proof is in the pudding, as some would say. Just as HockeyCowboy said, God allowed the thorns and thistles to make life hard for Adam and Eve. Not all obviously would believe that. And this happened ostensibly from the Bible, even according to the vaguest of minds, not all that long ago. Remember, not everyone who claimed to be religious believed Jesus. And not all care or believe that the earth is in a perilous state due to climate pollution.

He gave his beliefs, but I believe differently. You are just picking a belief and could be wrong about it. Just as I could. His belief does not offer anything in the way of restoring the Earth. In fact, his belief feels it is all part of a process that was pre-ordained and doing anything about it does not matter anyway. For all he really knows, God could be everywhere in the Earth and watching everything play out as it is and just allowing it to happen.

I believe that we have a responsibility to do something positive to stop the damage we have done and to turn it back if we can.

Of course none of this refutes the observation that JW's really deny science on ideological grounds while pretending to do so on scientific grounds and cannot admit that.

 

[YoursTrue]

300,000, not millions.
Rapid population growth gone unchecked coupled with increasing movement to new territory along with a proliferation of technology that enabled the first to steps.
He gave his beliefs, but I believe differently. You are just picking a belief and could be wrong about it. Just as I could. His belief does not offer anything in the way of restoring the Earth. In fact, his belief feels it is all part of a process that was pre-ordained and doing anything about it does not matter anyway. For all he really knows, God could be everywhere in the Earth and watching everything play out as it is and just allowing it to happen.

I believe that we have a responsibility to do something positive to stop the damage we have done and to turn it back if we can.

Of course none of this refutes the observation that JW's really deny science on ideological grounds while pretending to do so on scientific grounds and cannot admit that.

Here's a true humanoid.
New Fossil Reveals Face of Oldest Known 'Lucy' Relative

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here's a true humanoid.
New Fossil Reveals Face of Oldest Known 'Lucy' Relative

An ancestral species, but not Homo sapiens that have only been around for 300,000 years.

 

[YoursTrue]

300,000, not millions.
Rapid population growth gone unchecked coupled with increasing movement to new territory along with a proliferation of technology that enabled the first to steps.
He gave his beliefs, but I believe differently. You are just picking a belief and could be wrong about it. Just as I could. His belief does not offer anything in the way of restoring the Earth. In fact, his belief feels it is all part of a process that was pre-ordained and doing anything about it does not matter anyway. For all he really knows, God could be everywhere in the Earth and watching everything play out as it is and just allowing it to happen.

I believe that we have a responsibility to do something positive to stop the damage we have done and to turn it back if we can.

Of course none of this refutes the observation that JW's really deny science on ideological grounds while pretending to do so on scientific grounds and cannot admit that.

You still don't get it. Jehovah's Witnesses do not deny science, by that I mean scientific advances or discoveries. And deciding that the Lucys of the prehistoric world were early relatives by virtue of later relatives evolving from them is absurd. Although, I must say that Lucy's earlier relative is kind of cute.
New Fossil Reveals Face of Oldest Known 'Lucy' Relative

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You still don't get it.

I do get it.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not deny science, by that I mean scientific advances or discoveries.

Yes. I definitely get it, because they do. You do? Are you J and W brand?

And deciding that the Lucys of the prehistoric world were early relatives by virtue of later relatives evolving from them is absurd.

Not in that circular way or as a belief. But the scientific advances and discoveries all point to these species as being ancestral to humans.

Although, I must say that Lucy's earlier relative is kind of cute.
New Fossil Reveals Face of Oldest Known 'Lucy' Relative

I have not given it much thought. Cute was not an issue for me regarding science denial.

 

[YoursTrue]

An ancestral species, but not Homo sapiens that have only been around for 300,000 years.

Going back to 300,000 years, the advances "science" has made in reference to climate change, not necessarily to mankind's advantage, is truly astounding, isn't it, in a very small time period?
Europe, it is said, is heating up more rapidly than previously thought.
Europe Is Warming Even Faster Than Climate Models Predicted

No, that is not the case. You probably misunderstand the Miller-Urey experiment.



That is a possibility.



I would like to see your source.



What?



Yes, RNA had to come from somewhere.



Once again this is a case of creationists misunderstanding articles.



I see. You did not understand the source that you linked.

I'm beginning to think you're joking. Read the source again. The answers you're asking are in the source. Did someone say RNA didn't come from "somewhere"?

 

[YoursTrue]

I do get it.
Yes. I definitely get it, because they do. You do? Are you J and W brand?
Not in that circular way or as a belief. But the scientific advances and discoveries all point to these species as being ancestral to humans.
I have not given it much thought. Cute was not an issue for me regarding science denial.

What do you mean by science denial? Are you a science denier?
Yeah, Lucy's predecessor might be said to be cute, as in people finding gorillas cute.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You still don't get it. Jehovah's Witnesses do not deny science, by that I mean scientific advances or discoveries.

All the JW's I have met in real life or on here all deny biological sciences and probably more science than that. In fact, most of them do not understand it well enough to formulate relevant questions or claims about it, let alone repudiate it in any meaningful way.

For the most part, they consider everything to be a big conspiracy under the guidance of Satan. Which me wonder why they bother to concern themselves at all, but they do. Given the history of failed prophecies of doom, and the thrill they get for awaiting it, one wonders why they would bother worrying about the rest of us anyway.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Going back to 300,000 years, the advances "science" has made in reference to climate change, not necessarily to mankind's advantage, is truly astounding, isn't it, in a very small time period?
Europe, it is said, is heating up more rapidly than previously thought.
Europe Is Warming Even Faster Than Climate Models Predicted

You lost me. How does the first part fit with the last?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What do you mean by science denial? Are you a science denier?
Yeah, Lucy's predecessor might be said to be cute, as in people finding gorillas cute.

What I mean by rejection is exactly what we see here. Denial of science based on doctrine, misunderstanding, logical fallacies and belief rather than rejection of theories based on reason and evidence. Recall, that the rejection of evolution by scientists would not default to a religious belief as the answer. Scientists would still be looking for a natural explanation if reason were found to reject evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What do you mean by science denial? Are you a science denier?
Yeah, Lucy's predecessor might be said to be cute, as in people finding gorillas cute.

No. I have my beliefs and I have my understanding of science. The former does not enter into explaining the latter and the latter does not preclude the former.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What do you mean by science denial? Are you a science denier?
Yeah, Lucy's predecessor might be said to be cute, as in people finding gorillas cute.

Are you a Jehovah's Witness?