One of the most blatant cases of misquoting is in the July 1968 Watchtower. It discusses mammoths. I wrote about it here:
http://www.watchtowerletters.com/Cited_Article.html
You have to scroll down to where it says "As another example..."
Topics for discussion with JWs - part 2: Frozen mamooth - proof of the Flood?
by Albert Einstein 20 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
villabolo
SCIENCE AND EARTH HISTORY: THE EVOLUTION/CREATION CONTROVERSY by Arthur N. Strahler is one of the best books on the subject and it mentions the wooly Mammoths and other creationist myths. Well worth the price.
Villabolo
-
VM44
Suppose a mammoth was frozen, still with food in its mouth.
It was then submerged under water (world wide flood, remember?) for MONTHS!
Does The Watchtower really expect it to remain frozen and in good condition after being under water?
It would have defrosted!
-
bohm
Well, it dosnt really matter what answer you get as to why it was instantly frozen in the flood, simply because no mammoth has ever been found that had been instantly frozen!
The idea that there are instantly frozen mammoths originated in (iirc) the 1920 when russian scientist found one particular frozen mammoth with half digested food in its mouth. The problem is:
- the mammoth was in full decay and had been for some time prior to freezing. this was clear since the ground around the mammoth stunk from the rotten flesh. eg. its internal organs was dissolved.
- The mammoth had died because it fell into a ditch and broke a lot of bones and drowned. It showed clear signs of drowning, eg. it had an erection which higher mamals get when drowning.
- The idea that it had been instantly frozen arose by poor newspaper reporting. Even though the rotten mammoth stunk so bad (this is VERY well described by the poor fellows who dug it out, you can find plenty of original material written by guys who actually did the digging on the net) and was in a poor shape, some of the muscle tissue looked surprisingly good, and when they did the autopsy they threw the meat they cut of away to some dogs who ate it. A poor fellow even tried to cut out a piece of (muscle) tissue from the mammoth, fry it, fill it with spices and eat it; he threw up. However, that the mammoth was in so good shape that it could be eaten was created in a newspaper, and has existed ever since thanks to creationists.
So dont ask why an instantly froozen mammoth indicate the flood, because no such thing has ever been found! ask what his sources are, and show him that the WT is just a tool for propegating creationist lies when it comes to evolution.
sorry for the rant. that book annoys me!
-
Leolaia
Shepherd Book...OMG that QFR about how animals got to other continents after the Flood is one of the silliest Watchtower statements I have yet seen on the Flood. The animals walked to Australia and the Americas via land ridges (!). Or maybe a lost Pacific continent that included Australia. BTW, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge does not connect Europe or Africa with the Americas....whoever wrote that didn't have a clear idea of what Mr. Malaise was describing WRT the Mid-Atlantic Ridge being above sea level during the glacial periods.
Here is what Wikipedia says about it:
His only endeavor into geology, was his book Atlantis, en geologisk verklighet ("Atlantis, a geological reality"), which was widely ridiculed by the scientific community. In this book, he defended the "constriction theory" of paleozoologistNils Odhner and claimed that Alfred Wegeners theory of plate tectonics was incorrect and that the migration of species has been helped by a sunken continent in the Atlantic, i.e. Atlantis.
-
lurk3r
Thanks bohm.
The thing is here, if you were to tell that to a JW, they would say that quite possibly the WT did make a mistake. However, I'm sure they would jump on the fact that it drowned and quite possibly from the flood! Followed by ice being formed after the weather changed...It would fit the agenda.
It never dawned on me till now, but why in the hell would god make animals with thick fur to begin with? Really good points made doofdaddy and observations Leo.
lurk3r
-
bohm
The thing is here, if you were to tell that to a JW, they would say that quite possibly the WT did make a mistake. However, I'm sure they would jump on the fact that it drowned and quite possibly from the flood! Followed by ice being formed after the weather changed...It would fit the agenda.
Well, I suppose i would ask if i understand it correctly that the mammoth in question was drowned in rain, it then lay there a couple of weeks (this is how long they guess the decomposition took!) whily fluids from its corpse went into the ground around it (as described by those who found it) where the heaviest downpour in history didnt remove it, then, a couple of weeks into the flood, and supposedly beneath quite a lot of water, the corpse frooze solid, and remained frozen untill it was found?. I think i would ask why the mammoth didnt float away but remained in place, if they have an idea of the process that suddenly caused the temperature to be lowered locally around the mammoth, and i think i would ask why and where the WTC got its version of the story from (having material from creationists ready to show that that was the actual source).
The key is to keep recapping his version of the arguments, saying things like "okay, let me see if i understand you correctly now", repeat the silly thing he said, and then ask small questions to keep them thinking of it and dont change the subject (which they are very prone to! the key is to get them to think of the subject and not just argue with soundbites!). After a while the explanation will become so long and winded that they will realise:
a) the froozen mammoth isnt, perhaps, such a solid proof after all because the whole story about a mammoth suddenly freezing on the bottom of the ocean sounds kind of silly. b) how come this guy was able to poke gabing holes in such sure proof? why did i get in such a mess when the argument in the creation book sounded so convincing?
The point here is not to convince him in one go, but to make him do additional research on himself. Since the WT publish so little on the flood and evolution, that could be quite dangerous...
fun flood fact: who on the ark had syfilis, and was it the same person who had gonnoreah? (i know, it evolved/was created spontaniously after the flood, but its properly something they havent thought about before, and its allways interesting to ask if he feel that is a scientific explanation).
-
Albert Einstein
Bohm:
who on the ark had syfilis, and was it the same person who had gonnoreah?
Great point, Iam going to ask my zealous JW friend!
Albert
-
JustHuman14
Why there are cangooro only in Australia???
How did they travel there?
Why we have stoneage if Adam was the "perfect"creation?
Why there is an evolution process on Earth?
How did Dynos got vanished from the face of the earth?
Why did God "create"those flesh eating animals and dynos if all was supposed to be peacefull?
How can they explain the existence of Homo Sapiens, Neandertal, Australopithicus and other humanoids?
When it was the last age?
-
Shepherd Book
Leolaia: Thanks for the Wikipedia links. I should put a link to that page on my site.