Jump to content
The World News Media

Creation-Evolution-Creative Days-Age of the Earth-Humanoid Fossils-Great Flood


Recommended Posts

  • Member

Ann O'Maly said:

Quote

3 hours ago, AlanF said:
Arauna appears stuck in the pre-1980 Watchtower world

Quote

Nearer to 1950s and '60s Watchtower- and fringe-ideas-world.

To a certain extent, yes, but before about 1965 most Watchtower comments tended to follow Isaac Newton Vail's so-called Annular Theory of the Flood, Velikovsky, Ivan Sanderson, George McCready Price, and a few other crackpots.

Quote

To be fair, 'The Genesis Flood' was written before the mechanics of crustal plate movement were fully known and published.

It was published in 1961 and to a large extent followed the ideas of George McCready Price, a Seventh-Day Adventist whose main purpose in life, since about 1900, was to defend the young-earth creationism of SDA founder Ellen White. Apparently the Watchtower (I'm guessing Fred Franz) got hold of the book and ran with it in terms of publishing defenses of the Flood. The Society even quoted from it as if it were a real science textbook. The main author, Henry Morris, went on to found the Institute for Creation Research, which published dozens of books and other materials advocating Morris' version of YECism, including Flood Geology and so-called "Scientific Creationism". Later, that spun off Answers in Genesis and other crackpot outfits such as Walter Brown's Center for Scientific Creation. Brown is so far out in left field that the other YECs will have nothing to do with him. These are Arauna's sources.

Quote

And then there's Velikovsky ... 🤨

One critical author called him "the very model of a crank".

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Views 4.4k
  • Replies 365
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

On Whether Noah's Flood Is Physically Possible Consider the amount of water needed to flood the entire earth to a depth sufficient to cover the highest mountains. What depth would that be? The Watchtower Society quoted a source that estimated how deep the water would be if the earth were completely smooth (Is the Bible Really the Word of God?, 1969, p. 37): << If all the irregularities on the earth's surface were to be smoothed out, both above and below the water, so that th

I'm making a catch-all place for the discussions on these topics that were currently under different topics/subjects. As I move old posts into this new topic, the oldest ones will appear to identify the starter/owner of this topic, even though that person didn't create this topic.

You’re entire premise is wrong on so many things: “American scholar of religion Holly Folk ... show[s] that, although there have been cases of sexual abuse by members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the number of perpetrators is not higher, and may actually be significantly lower, when compared to the prevalence of sexual abuse in other religions and in our modern societies in general. It is also not true, Folk said, that Jehovah’s Witnesses oppose reporting of cases of sexual abuse to secular

Posted Images

  • Member

True Tom Harley said:

Quote

3 hours ago, AlanF said:
These topics are rarely discussed by JWs today

Quote

That’s because they are Bible teachers. Let scientists be scientists and Bible teachers be Bible teachers.

You should call up Fred Franz on the earth-heaven phone and instruct him that the dozens of books and magazines that discussed them at length should never have been published.

The Publications Indexes contain dozens of references, such as "confirmation", which purport to use science to support the idea of an earthwide Flood. For example: w68 7/15 "Was There an Earthwide Flood?"

For a thorough disproof of the Flood, and copious references to Watchtower material, see

    Hello guest!

By your 'logic', Watchtower writers were not Bible teachers until about 1980. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I'll look for an older post. I think it was in another topic, but I recall AlanF seemed to have brought this up out of nowhere somewhere else recently. If that's older than yours, the problem is resolved. AlanF deserves this one anyway. I don't think he can go 20 posts without changing to one of these subjects, even if it's just as simple/banal as: "You're as moronic as a flat earth creationist."

[Edited to add: Looks like your off the hook. Arauna appears to have the oldest post here, but I'll still be on the lookout for one from AlanF that pins this whole offshoot on him.]

When I write something on these topics, it most certainly has relevance to the thread. Especially when ignorant people like Arauna challenge me with crap like "you believe in the religion of evolution, so what do you know?"

The very first post you moved to this new thread proves my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
22 minutes ago, AlanF said:

You should call up Fred Franz on the earth-heaven phone and instruct him that the dozens of books and magazines that discussed them at length should never have been published.

Yeah, they changed those things.

They are very open about it. It is called the “light getting brighter” and/or “tacking.”

There is no mystery about such changes. They do it all the time. The only ones who go apoplectic about it are iconoclasts like you, furious with anyone who does not give due respect to mommy science.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member

True Tom Harley said:
 

Quote

35 minutes ago, AlanF said:
You should call up Fred Franz on the earth-heaven phone and instruct him that the dozens of books and magazines that discussed them at length should never have been published.

Quote

 

Yeah, they changed those things.

They are very open about it.

 

Nonsense. Tell us please: in what publication did the Society announce that it was abandoning Flood Geology? Or the ridiculous notion of a "vapor canopy"? Or admit that the "7,000-year creative days" were actually several hundred million years long (of course, the Genesis days are entirely out of sync with the fossil evidence, so the notion of a "creative day" is completely wrongheaded). Where did they openly explain why they changed "7,000 years" to "millennia" in some publications after 1985?

Quote

It is called the “light getting brighter” and/or “tacking.”

A total misapplication of Proverbs. The passage has nothing to do with increasing "spiritual light". I doubt you're even aware that it was the Adventist community that first began misapplying Proverbs to excuse the failed predictions of William Miller.

As for "tacking", it was GB member Karl Klein who originated the concept in a mid-1980s Watchtower article. Many Bethelites actually laughed at him.

Quote

There is no mystery about such changes. They do it all the time.

Of course -- which proves that God has nothing to do with them. At least, no more than with the Pope.

Quote

The only ones who go apoplectic about it are iconoclasts like you, furious with anyone who does not give due respect to mommy science.

Wrong. Critics like me are concerned with truth. We tend to get bent out of shape at anyone who falsely claims divine guidance, divine knowledge, and so forth. It's called "righteous anger", something that Jesus is said to have displayed toward similar charlatans two thousand years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
11 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Nonsense. Tell us please: in what publication did the Society announce that it was abandoning

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

These topics are rarely discussed by JWs today,

You just answered your own question. Such things don’t have to be formally repealed since they were never law to begin with. If it hasn’t been mentioned in 50 years, it probably is not a big deal any more. 

Recall that the Awake interviewed Michael Behe, who accepts evolution in the main but simply argues that it has limits. They would not have done that if the two hated each others guts.

They point is that they are not dogmatic. They are open to things that does not trash God. They are not dogmatic. You are the dogmatic one—you who huff and puff your “righteous anger” to whoever does not yield to your bullying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member

True Tom Harley said:

Quote

 

54 minutes ago, AlanF said:
Nonsense. Tell us please: in what publication did the Society announce that it was abandoning

  5 hours ago, AlanF said:
These topics are rarely discussed by JWs today,

 

Quote

You just answered your own question.

Nonsense.

Quote

Such things don’t have to be formally repealed since they were never law to begin with.

Of course they were. Any JW who dared to dispute these "never laws" would have been disfellowshipped. I know, because I was threatened with that when I brought up such things with elders. "Apostasy!" they said.

Quote

If it hasn’t been mentioned in 50 years, it probably is not a big deal any more. 

But it's still on the books. Therefore, it's still "present truth".

Quote

Recall that the Awake interviewed Michael Behe, who accepts evolution in the main but simply argues that it has limits. They would not have done that if the two hated each others guts.

Ah, Behe. The Society used him as an authority until it figured out that Behe actually accepts evolution -- but a divinely guided sort.

Quote

They point is that they are not dogmatic.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Quote

They are open to things that does not trash God. They are not dogmatic.

Complete nonsense. The God-guided sort of evolution of Behe and many other Christians is anathema to Watchtower leaders. They've expressly rejected such ideas in several publications.

Quote

You are the dogmatic one—you who huff and puff your “righteous anger” to whoever does not yield to your bullying.

LOL! Bullying? What do you think disfellowshipping for simply disagreeing with WTS leaders is? Hypocrite!

By your 'logic' Jesus was a bully.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
28 minutes ago, AlanF said:

But it's still on the books. Therefore, it's still "present truth".

You’re a real piece of work, aren’t you? Of course it isn’t. 
 
If you got in trouble with any elders over this, it is because you carried on there as you do here. It has little to do with whatever question began the discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You’re a real piece of work, aren’t you? Of course it isn’t. 

Of course it is. Absent explicit removal, doctrines remain in place.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

 
If you got in trouble with any elders over this, it is because you carried on there as you do here. It has little to do with whatever question began the discussion.

Nonsense. I always approached such subjects with kid gloves. As usual you have no clue what you're talking about. I had discussions with elders, a circuit overseer and GB member Albert Schroeder without any problems, aside from the generalized implied threat of disfellowshipping if I did not finally assent to their view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
9 hours ago, AlanF said:

For a thorough disproof of the Flood, and copious references to Watchtower material, see

    Hello guest!

General Description Of The Flood

The events of the Flood according to the Genesis account and Watchtower publications are:

From Genesis:

1. The flood was a global cataclysm.

2. It lasted about a year.

3. The highest mountains were covered by the floodwaters.

4. The draining of the floodwaters took about eleven months.

5. The source of the waters was the "floodgates of the heavens" and the "springs of the watery deep."

From the Insight

    Hello guest!
 book:

6. The source of the flood was the water above the "expanse" created on the second creative day of Genesis.

7. Prior to the flood there were no high mountains, no deep sea basins, and no icecaps.

8. During or after the flood the earth's crust shifted, mountains were created, and the shallow sea basins were deepened.

I read two or three articles you wrote this morning. Great. If such enormous amount of water stayed at earth surface in liquid state than nothing could be frozen, neither plants nor animals nor people. If they found few frozen animals, why they didn't find frozen people that died in Flood?

According to Genesis book Noah's ark floated on the water for months. So nothing was frozen , neither at the time of the outbreak of the Flood nor months later. "Sudden freezing" did not occur. How law temperature is required and how much time is needed for so much water to be frozen in minutes??

Law temperature will cause health problem for people and animals in Ark. They would not be able to survive because all would be frozen, not just few animals (found in, imagine, Siberia...., and not in Africa or some other area !!??)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
14 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:
16 hours ago, Arauna said:

Teutonic plates

🤣 Love it!

I speak 6 languages-  and you?  Tech tonic. .... you focus on words or spelling mistakes when you cannot answer ..... is that  a "scholarly"  tactic? 

I am  living in Albania.... so when you are online in the day it is already deep in my night.  I guess you think you are superior...... but your atheist conduct is similar to that of AlanF. ..... 

Science is now the God of this world..... unfortunately. Soon we will see a science or tech dictatorship take over the world with the "great reset" .... then you will experience the wonders of corrupt human knowledge and you whow ' your god' cannot save you

 

Link to post
Share on other sites




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines 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.