by Lied2NoMore 43 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
>I recommend that you give the part, so over the top that it is embarassing. Make up you own references proving that a spider web could stop the earth in its rotation around the sun.
Sitting at home....... got an ambitious young lad to cover it for me....but what you said got me ROFL!!!
Here's the truth about the spider web:
A real spider web is strong enough to stop a fly. If you increase the dimensions of the web proportionally, it would indeed stop the jumbo jet. However, a fly is 1/2" long. A jumbo jet is closer to 10,000/2" inches, meaning you would need to blow up the web strands' thickness by a factor of roughly 10,000. I doubt the rag mentions that.
That brochure SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKS.
It is designed to seem reasonable but when it gets into the real issues surrounding the evolution/creation controversy (which, in light of actual evidence, is hardly controversial at all) it blatantly disregards the abundant proof for evolution, shows incredible ingnorance of the real story of the natural selection process, and then serves to confuse the reader with out-of-context information and logical gap jumping.
I'm glad you didn't have to give that part.
As for your "Project Mayhem" aspirations...relax. Don't do anything illegal.
How did anyone publishing that think a spiderweb could stop a jet lol. You can swat away spiderwebs with ease with your own fingers!
Anyway, the most effective option for you is to give the part, and mention the error casually, perhaps saying to not necessarily emphasize that point as you offer the brochure. Its true, calls no real alarms, and has the added bonus of getting people to start thinking that perhaps the words in the WT are not as flawless as they might think.
I'd like more details on the Borg's retraction. Was it in the KM. A letter to the elders. Details, please.
Got the same part! I'm still thinking of a good introduction:
Here goes (this is on the fly):
- Hi, my name is *blah*, what is yours
*blah*
- I am talking to all your neighbors about the creation. The bible says that God created the earth in 7 periods of 1000 years (this is old light, you can tone it down with 7 creation periods if you're a younger member) and in the end he saw that it was good (read Genesis 3:something, look it up). Do you think an interpretation of the bible text will ever match up to the scientific findings of our modern age?
* I am currently in college and have always learned even in high school (change this to fit your partners age) that the earth is millions of years old and that even the earliest humans lived 250,000 years ago so I personally think a literal interpretation of the bible would probably not be correct.
- Well this brochure here I have with me tries to explain how some scientific findings and scientific journalists have apparently supported some of the details the Bible tells about nature such as the *insert example here (I think Leviathan in Job or the round earth will do)*. Do you think you would be interested in reviewing it?
* Off course I can review some other viewpoints on the matter, it is always interesting to see what other people believe even if they appear to be incorrect.
- Here you go, maybe I can come back another time to get your opinion on the matter, I would really like to discuss the bible's viewpoint with you.
* That's a good idea, I'll look up what I've learned in my textbooks and when you come back we can discuss some of it.
- See you next week same time?
* Sure
=alternatively=
* I'll read it but I am not interested in a Bible discussion.
- OK, well if you would like us to contact you again, here is an invitation to our meetings or you can fill out the information on the back of the brochure.
In the interest of accuracy, i would also like to see this 'retraction'. From what i can tell, the society has done just the opposite, in the 2011 yearbook pg 10 they said they researched the hell out of the spidersilk/jumbojet and confirmed it is accurate...yaay for them ect. Promotion of inaccurate info about the JW's is the worst thing we could do as it confirms pre-conceptions of newbies checking this site out. Don't get me wrong, i'm not an apologist...just interested in taking back the definition of the word 'Truth'.
onefootout
What rock was I under about the spiderweb retraction? I never read the brochure but I remember the photo from my meeting last night.
2011 YB confirms, rather than retracts the spider web claim. I've looked at calculations and the premise seems plausible. Multiplying the diameter of some of the strongest web strands (there are several types) to the proportions mentioned and comparing it to the inertia of a jet seems to add up. If anything would cause failure, it would be velocity. Nothing caught in webs is traveling hundreds of miles per hour. The combination of tensile strength and elasticity are what give webs the stopping power they have to catch even birds in some cases. This may be one of those things that seems to work on paper, but reality reveals something overlooked.
The denials I find against this theory seem to all be about a variation of it: a strand the size of a pencil; not a web. The version presented in the brochure uses a web the size of a football field of 1cm threads of "dragline" (major-ampullate) silk, 4cm apart. That would be the world's most dense spider web, if on a normal scale. It would look like a piece of cloth, rather than the net-like webs we see.
which has the flawed
statement about a large sized spiderweb stopping a jumbo jet mid-flight. the society has offered a retraction of the
statement but should i........
I had not heard of this statement - could somebody give a quick rundown on it?
I just do not think I could resist debunking such a statement if I had to do that part -
