Jeffro

Joined

• started 46 topics
• posted 6,790 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jeffro

• 
  40

  Was it Designed?

  by Jeffro in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the jw website is currently featuring a piece: the shell of the diabolical ironclad beetle​—was it designed?

  it is part of their regular tedious 'was it designed?

  ' series that purports that very very specific animal species must have been specifically designed because of some seemingly amazing feature.. but they seem completely unaware that this directly contradicts their notion that only very broad 'kinds' were required on the mythical 'ark'.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  TonusOH:

  I can't wait for the next episode: Necrotizing fasciitis -- was it designed?

  Silly you. ‘Nice things’ = ‘design’. ‘Nasty things’ = ‘imperfection’. Because reasons. Slam dunk, atheists. 🤣
• 
  40

  Was it Designed?

  by Jeffro in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the jw website is currently featuring a piece: the shell of the diabolical ironclad beetle​—was it designed?

  it is part of their regular tedious 'was it designed?

  ' series that purports that very very specific animal species must have been specifically designed because of some seemingly amazing feature.. but they seem completely unaware that this directly contradicts their notion that only very broad 'kinds' were required on the mythical 'ark'.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’:

  kinds as a proper zoological classification

  😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
  

  the DNA mechanism and other environmental factors led to the wondrous appearance of the diabolical ironclad beetle

  So… not designed, but just an adapted beetle due to selection pressures (there’s a word for that). The cognitive dissonance is indeed strong.
• 
  40

  Was it Designed?

  by Jeffro in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the jw website is currently featuring a piece: the shell of the diabolical ironclad beetle​—was it designed?

  it is part of their regular tedious 'was it designed?

  ' series that purports that very very specific animal species must have been specifically designed because of some seemingly amazing feature.. but they seem completely unaware that this directly contradicts their notion that only very broad 'kinds' were required on the mythical 'ark'.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  ThomasCovenant:

  What do you mean, 6000 years? The Flood, according to the Watchtower, happened 4,394 years ago in 2370BC.

  I was being generous by including their entire period (as a round figure) for speciation and potential for genetic diversity rather than the imaginary genetic bottleneck event.

  Incidentally, biblical chronology would actually place the fictitious event in 2512 BCE.
• 
  40

  Was it Designed?

  by Jeffro in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the jw website is currently featuring a piece: the shell of the diabolical ironclad beetle​—was it designed?

  it is part of their regular tedious 'was it designed?

  ' series that purports that very very specific animal species must have been specifically designed because of some seemingly amazing feature.. but they seem completely unaware that this directly contradicts their notion that only very broad 'kinds' were required on the mythical 'ark'.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  slimboyfat:

  To me evolution and design are in harmony, because reality seems to be constructed in such a way that certain kinds of forms reliably result from natural processes. In particular consciousness seems to be a determined outcome. If that is the case, then isn’t it right to talk about the design of the various forms that evolution produces?

  No. Argument from ignorance, argument from incredulity, naturalistic fallacy, equivocation fallacy.
• 
  23

  What exactly IS 1914 these days?

  by Halcon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it's no longer a year tying to the present (the old pre-1995 generation belief).

  realistically, that's the only reason why it mattered.

  and if it doesn't really matter what it is anymore, why would jw not do away with it?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  The Watch Tower Society is mentioning 1914 and 607 BCE less frequently than it did in decades past, but it still gets its own 'study lesson' (32) in their current 'study' publication, including their 'explanation' (if you'd call it that) of the '2,520 years'. That study lesson directs the reader to the Watch Tower Society's 2014 attempt to defend 1914 in the October and November issues of The Watchtower (rebuttal here).

  So it can't at all be said that it's just something that 'old timers' remember.
  
• 
  23

  What exactly IS 1914 these days?

  by Halcon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it's no longer a year tying to the present (the old pre-1995 generation belief).

  realistically, that's the only reason why it mattered.

  and if it doesn't really matter what it is anymore, why would jw not do away with it?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  It would be funny watching JW devotees (such as the one above) flounder about if 607 BCE and 1914 were to get dropped though. 🤣

  Especially when they so doggedly cling to an obviously false chronology just because they’re told to.
• 
  40

  Was it Designed?

  by Jeffro in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the jw website is currently featuring a piece: the shell of the diabolical ironclad beetle​—was it designed?

  it is part of their regular tedious 'was it designed?

  ' series that purports that very very specific animal species must have been specifically designed because of some seemingly amazing feature.. but they seem completely unaware that this directly contradicts their notion that only very broad 'kinds' were required on the mythical 'ark'.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Speciation at the required rate over just 6000 years would be way too fast to call evolution. More like magic.
• 
  40

  Was it Designed?

  by Jeffro in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the jw website is currently featuring a piece: the shell of the diabolical ironclad beetle​—was it designed?

  it is part of their regular tedious 'was it designed?

  ' series that purports that very very specific animal species must have been specifically designed because of some seemingly amazing feature.. but they seem completely unaware that this directly contradicts their notion that only very broad 'kinds' were required on the mythical 'ark'.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  The JW website is currently featuring a piece: The Shell of the Diabolical Ironclad Beetle​—Was It Designed? It is part of their regular tedious 'Was It Designed?' series that purports that very very specific animal species must have been specifically designed because of some seemingly amazing feature.

  But they seem completely unaware that this directly contradicts their notion that only very broad 'kinds' were required on the mythical 'ark'. Does anyone ever point this out to them?
  
• 
  10

  2024-04-April-Languages-Announcements And Reminders-S-147!

  by Atlantis in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  2024-04-april-announcements and reminders.. languagesafrikaanshttps://pdfupload.io/docs/a85be9ff armenianhttps://pdfupload.io/docs/fe57b8a6 chinesehttps://pdfupload.io/docs/e5da00d7 croatianhttps://pdfupload.io/docs/452fd4d5 danishhttps://pdfupload.io/docs/a6b8ec28 dutchhttps://pdfupload.io/docs/3ff82dfb englishhttps://pdfupload.io/docs/ef235dbd filipinohttps://pdfupload.io/docs/8a7ebe43 frenchhttps://pdfupload.io/docs/7a04d7bf germanhttps://pdfupload.io/docs/f27daee9 greekhttps://pdfupload.io/docs/02b3db31 haitian creolehttps://pdfupload.io/docs/ae1d93e2 hebrewhttps://pdfupload.io/docs/aecdecf1 hungarianhttps://pdfupload.io/docs/fb8eb105 italianhttps://pdfupload.io/docs/0bb5d16e japanesehttps://pdfupload.io/docs/6c8d05f3 norwegianhttps://pdfupload.io/docs/03ff27f9 polishhttps://pdfupload.io/docs/3e645e96 portuguesehttps://pdfupload.io/docs/541375d0 russianhttps://pdfupload.io/docs/be7e2a5c spanishhttps://pdfupload.io/docs/6de127bf ukrainianhttps://pdfupload.io/docs/88b19d49 grandpa!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Mikejw:

  I can confirm 100% we do not report Bible studies anymore. All we do is give a thumbs up 👍 that we did some kind of ministry

  If this is representative of other JWs, it certainly would explain why Bible Study numbers have fallen off. 🤦‍♂️In addition to ticking the box, they are indeed still supposed to report the number of Bible studies conducted (including studies with their own children, which accounts for most of them). But maybe a significant number of them are just ticking the box and forgetting to fill in the other bit (though there could also be fewer fudging the number of studies now that they don't have to fudge the number of hours).

  The announcements are really pushing Bible studies at every level, with instructions for elders, coordinators, service overseers, and regular publishers (with a 'Worldwide Campaign in September'). The announcement for elders reminds them that Bible studies are part of their "commission to make disciples". But how does that measure up to what the general public is told about JW Bible studies? 😏 See also Are JW Bible studies ‘obligation free’?
  
• 
  23

  What exactly IS 1914 these days?

  by Halcon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it's no longer a year tying to the present (the old pre-1995 generation belief).

  realistically, that's the only reason why it mattered.

  and if it doesn't really matter what it is anymore, why would jw not do away with it?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Halcon:

  It's no longer a year tying to the present (the old pre-1995 generation belief). Realistically, that's the only reason why it mattered.

  Indeed, 1914 is itself tied to their past, which some people imagine to be less relevant for JWs because it is so long ago (often in relation to the very broken teaching about the 'generation'). But their beliefs about 1914 underpin their supposed claim of authority. To abandon their '1914' doctrine, they also need to reinvent their 'faithful slave' teaching as the basis for the 'Governing Body' or the Watch Tower Society or Jehovah's Witnesses having any 'divine backing'.

  For more information, see Jehovah Witnesses and 1914—'Faithful Slave' class.