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. 🤣
Posts by Jeffro
-
40Was it Designed?
by Jeffro inthe 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'.
-
-
-
40
Was it Designed?
by Jeffro inthe 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'.
-
-
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 inthe 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'.
-
-
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 inthe 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'.
-
-
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 inprobably 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.
-
-
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 inprobably 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.
-
-
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 inprobably 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.
-
-
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 AMSteinmann 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. 😒)
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably 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.
-
-
Jeffro
nicolaou:
I don't think anyone is denying that it istaught (like a hoop to jump through or a box to tick) but I think the consensus is that no-one cares about it.
In principle that is shifting the goal posts (and many JWs being apathetic about it isn’t new either). In practice, I don’t think ‘scholar’ got the memo. 🤣
They are producing less printed content overall, so all of their doctrines are mentioned less than they used to be. Most of their video content is appeal to emotion.
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably 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.
-
-
Jeffro
scholar’:
You certainly make assumptions. Just read your article or better still if you were to provide a proper PDF without its silly ads then I could refer you to specific paragraphs.
Lamest excuse ever. Seriously… ‘can’t refer to a specific paragraph because ads’. 🙄🤣 I’m not going to change the format just to pander to your special needs, nor do I see the need to pay more for hosting just so you don’t have some minor inconvenience.
Back on topic, poor ‘scholar’ seems to imagine I haven’t considered Thiele’s view. In the 1940s, Thiele’s chronology placed the Battle of Carchemish in the summer of 604 BCE. However, in 1956 after publication of the Babylonian chronicles, Thiele was forced to acknowledge that the battle was actually in 605 BCE. But he was desperate to retain his claims about the fall of Jerusalem occurring in 586 BCE. Thiele correctly deduced that the books of Kings and Jeremiah use Tishri dating for kings of Judah, but incorrectly concluded it was Tishri/accession dating so that Zedekiah’s 11th year would align with 586 BCE. However, to apply consistent reckoning for Jehoiakim’s reign would require either that Jehoiakim had a 12th regnal year (13 including accession year) or that the battle of Carchemish was in the summer of Jehoiakim‘s 3rd year (depending on Thiele’s deliberations about whether Jehoiakim began to reign before or after the start of Tishri 609 BCE, though it is now known it could not have been before anyway). Neither conclusion is consistent with the Bible.
On the other hand, I have reconciled all of the relevant verses. The siege ended in July 587 BCE. Correct application of the dating systems consequently identities the start of the siege in January 589 BCE.
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably 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.
-
-
Jeffro
Gorb:
This goes about nothing. 607 is a meaningless issue for current jw's.
Except for the fact that it is specifically covered in a chapter of the ‘study’ publication that all new JWs go through. 🤷♂️
It's rearly mentioned and an absolute non issue.Where do people get this incorrect notion that it’s not taught anymore??