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

  Vidiot;

  I don’t recall them ever saying that.

  They don’t use that specific term but it is implicit in their assertion that there were just a relatively few ‘kinds’ needed in the mythical ark. And at a rate much faster than actually occurs in nature.
• 
  8

  Was Anyone Ever Disfellowshipped For Having a Beard?

  by NotFormer in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i read a comment somewhere that having a beard ( before such was allowed) was never a disfellowshippable offence.

  but does that mean that no-one who grew a beard was ever eventually disfellowshipped?.

  growing a beard when such was frowned upon would surely attract the attention of those with nothing better to do, and possibly lead to sniffing around to try and find things that the "disobedient" one was up to.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Having a beard was regarded as ‘following the styles of the world’ and would result in ‘loss of privileges’ but not shunning.
• 
  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

  budbayview:

  you need to explain

  You need to explain specifically what God is without deferring to vague undefined terms such as ‘spirit’, and provide verifiable details about how it interacts with the physical universe (not lame poetry about God being love or similar claptrap, actual science). Remember, no ‘sophomoric’ responses.
• 
  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

  I really don’t need to explain that at all. I provided the principle involved. I’m under no obligation to explain it in detail. It’s funny how creationists just assert that ‘god did a magic thing’, but they expect everyone else to be an expert in genetics. 🤣
• 
  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

  budbayview:

  I am unable to generate a suitable argument for how this would have “evolved” in the absence of a Creator or how this parasitic behavior could be developed without an intentional design.

  The short version is that toxoplasmosis (genus Toxoplasma) affects many types of cells, but once a variant (T.gondii) happened to adapt that affected rat behaviour in a way that makes that variation spread more, it inherently makes that variation of toxoplasmosis much more successful. No ‘knowledge of species behaviour’ is necessary at all.

  Conversely, arguing that it was intentionally designed by a ‘creator’ is all kinds of messed up.
• 
  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

  Diogenesister:

  Watchtower has always believed in micro evolution. They accept "kinds" can adapt to different environments - they just get flaky when it comes to speciation.

  Yes, but that doesn’t help them when they say that very specific species that are necessarily the result of evolution —even so-called ‘micro-evolution —must instead have been specifically designed rather than just adapted to their environments. ‘Kind’ has no meaning in taxonomy, and some unique feature in a specific species that isn’t generally present in that ‘kind’ obviously wasn’t ‘designed’ if it instead arose through adaptation to a particular environment.
• 
  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:

  The Bible doesn’t say snakes could talk. It says a snake talked to Eve and later it clarified that it was Satan the Devil that spoke by the snake.

  I think your autocorrect changed ‘claimed’ to ‘clarified’. 🤣 Though it’s barely even a claim. The Bible never directly states that Satan was the snake in Eden or that it controlled the snake. The closest it gets is suggesting that Satan is a serpent in Revelation (a retcon at best rather than a ‘clarification’) but doesn’t say he was the snake in the Eden myth. The concept of the devil was a pagan Persian concept introduced into Judaism.
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’:

  What is odd is that you are unable to recognize the difference between an opinion and dogmatism. The fact is that as with your contrivance as with Young's discussion, both are based on some assumptions hence an opinion.

  Notice how ‘scholar’ is unable to directly assess any specific premises and instead falls back to vague and incorrect assertions that ignore the actual content.

  It’s particularly amusing having a JW apologist complain about supposed dogmatism while simultaneously holding a dogmatic view that the Jews returned in 537 BCE rather than 538 BCE, based solely on it being 70 years after 607 BCE, which is in turn based on being 70 years before 537 BCE (based on an interpretation that contradicts direct statements in the Bible). And that contrivance is the linchpin of his entire world view. 🤣
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Not odd at all. Young correctly indicates that it was 587 BCE, provides reasons, and concludes that it is therefore the preferred position despite some other sources still using the incorrect 586 BCE. Only odd thing is your inability to process information.
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  'scholar':

  On the other hand for a beginning date for the siege against Jerusalem we see this:
  Jeffro -27 January 589 BCE
  Thiele- 15 January 588 BCE
  Lipschits - early January 587 BCE
  Finegan - 15 Jan 588 BCE
  Steinmann - 27 January 589 BCE - Tuesday
  Jones - 588 BCE 3416 AM

  Steinmann is also correct. Good on him. The selected sources that incorrectly place the end of the siege in the wrong year also have the wrong year for the start of the siege. No surprises here.

  (Great citations by the way. 😒)