by Diamonds 7 Replies latest jw friends
Sorry this might be a really stupid question, but it's been so long since i've read any JW material, been in contact with them that I don't remember! I know they believe the earth to be billions of years old, but wasn't sure about whether they 'agree' with the Pangea.
Thanks
They alluded to it in an attempt to explain Koala bears getting to Oz from Ararat, but conveniently forgot to mention that the time frame didn't match.
Cheers
Chris
You know, I was raised as a JW, and I was just thinking this same thing the other day. I recall asking my dad about it one time, and he just said that it didn't really matter one way or the other. It is possible, and we know that Jehovah created the earth, so, the details were kindof immaterial.
I have wondered that same thing myself though. I will keep an eye on this post to see if anyone else has an opinion about this.
Questions From Readers WT Jan 15 1962
How can we account for animals in isolated lands when the Flood is said to have covered all the earth and the only land animals that survived were those in the ark?—P. G., England.
The presence of certain forms of animal life on Australia and New Zealand, for example, is no valid argument against the Bible account that all life on earth was wiped out in the Flood, except that of Noah and those with him in the ark. How might these animals have migrated from Mount Ararat, where the ark landed, to other continents and to islands? By means of land ridges. Oceanographic studies reported on by Dr. René Malaise and published in the Swedish geographical magazine, Ymer, tell of findings that indicate that there was once a “Mid-Atlantic Ridge,” crossing that ocean above the surface. (New York Times, September 23, 1956) It is possible that there were also other ridges, and animals could have migrated by means of these before such ridges sank below the surface of the ocean.
Nor is that the only possible explanation. Other oceanographic studies have turned up evidence that once there existed a huge South Pacific continent that took in Australia and many of the South Sea isles. If such was the case, then, of course, the animals had no difficulty in migrating to those lands.
I recently had an unbaptised born in give me the above explanation.
That article would have been published around the time she was born. Maybe it has been repeated since, but I can't find anything.
It could be that the explanation has just been handed on by word of mouth by parents trying to answer their kids.
Cheers
Chris
I never heard of it.
They question the theory of continental drift in the June 22, 1977 Awake!
I would say that continental drift is pretty irrefutable. The reason I posted this question is in relation to the 'increase in earthquakes' falacy that is currently getting the JWs so excited.
If they accept the Pangeae as the supercontinent which then separated into the current tectonic plates, then they have to accept that massive, major earthquakes and related phenemona are something that have occured for billions of years and will continue to occur for billions of years as the plates continue to move around, bump into each other and cause mayhem.
Earthquakes are not limited to our time and the 4 devasting ones we have had so far this year are in no way an indication that 'the end is nigh'.
Why would God have created a world where earthquakes were already occuring for Adam and Eve if they were meant to live in a paradise? It would make more sense for JWs to believe in fundamentalist creationism which states the world is only 6000 years old.
I hope this makes sense - I've had a couple of glasses of wine tonight so i'm probably talking a load of crap.
D.
