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.
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣
’scholar’:
I admire your confidence but you yourself on your Blog regarding this controversy admit that we cannot know the precise date of the Fall whether it is 587 or 586 BCE
Not just delusional but an outright liar. Pathetic.
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.
JWs were saying 606 BCE until 1943 when the finally realised there was no year zero. They refused to change 1914, so they ‘changed’ history instead. 🤣
It really will be funny seeing how ‘scholar’ behaves if they do drop 1914.
And the correct year consistent with all of the evidence is definitely 587 BCE. Publication of Babylonian records confirmed the correct year decades ago, but various sources continue to simply repeat Thiele’s outdated chronology. No analysis of the records has pointed to 586 BCE in the last half a century.
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'.
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. 🤣
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'.
‘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.
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'.
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.
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'.
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.
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?.
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.
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?.
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.
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'.
Speciation at the required rate over just 6000 years would be way too fast to call evolution. More like magic.
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'.
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?
