--Disney has destroyed every story they've ever touched. From 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea to Mary Poppins to Treasure Island. I don't know why they feel the need to do this.
Posts by TD
-
12Disney Star Wars makes another retarded choice
by LoveUniHateExams inwhat is it with disney star wars?
why is it that seemingly everything disney touches turns to shit?
what the f**k are these scooters doing in the book of boba fett?!
-
-
TD
-
92
Chance or intelligent design?
by ExBethelitenowPIMA incofty could you answer how the single cell came about by chance?.
i know the argument for complexity in nature says natural selection over billions of years but this could not explain the complexity of the single cell the building blocks of life?.
-
-
TD
Since the subject of books people have and haven't read has been mentioned, I thought I'd throw this in:
I read the 1967 JW publication, Did Man Get Here By Evolution Or By Creation? as an adolescent. It was satisfying at first, but I eventually realized it contained serious errors that any farm boy could spot. The author(s) enumerated members of the dog "kind" to include species that were not fertile with each other despite their insistence that "kinds" are defined along reproductive lines.. They held up hybrid sterility as an example of an animal reaching, "the limits of its kind" when it is actually clear and unambiguous evidence of genetic drift. The author(s) did not even seem to understand the difference between a mule and a hinny (!)
In 1985, the JW's released the book, Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution Or Creation? Although this book was a little more polished, it contained the same misuse of mathematics and (At this point) outdated arguments. It also failed to address some of the more compelling arguments for evolution including, divergence, speciation and zoography.
The same year, Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory In Crises was published, which was head and shoulders above the JW publication above. Denton was fair inasmuch as he drew a clear distinction between Darwin's conservatism and anti-clerics like Huxely, Spencer and Romaines He acknowledged the reality of speciation and instead, drew his line in the sand at what he termed "Saltational types."
However like the JW's, he too had the aggravating tendency to reason via analogy. An analogy is a useful rhetorical device to illustrate a concept once it has been positively established, but it is not proof in and of itself. People who compare molecular interactions to heat engines and other metallic machinery or polypeptide chains to linguistics are at best, selling you snake oil and at worst, don't actually understand what they're talking about.
Michael Behe's 1996 book, Darwin's Black Box conceded even more territory to Darwin. Behe acknowledged that evolution accounts for the emergence of new species, including disease resistant bacteria. Behe, in public debate, also agreed that the 100% match in shared DNA sequences between human and gorilla proved that they shared a recent, common ancestor.
However like Denton, Behe balked at what he termed "Irreducible complexity" which strikes me as a mischaracterization of the basic proposition of evolution. Evolution does not propose that the individual parts of a complex structure evolved independently. Evolution proposes that simple structures evolved into more complex structures over time. Big difference.
I'm not saying that you should accept evolution. I'm saying that if you want to argue against it, you should do so honestly. At a bare minimum, that would require familiarity with these books:
Charles Darwin -- On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker
Donald Prothero - Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters
-
6
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
by JohnTron7 ini saw in the news where a teacher got mad at a student for coming in late during the pledge of allegiance and threw them against a wall and so the student was suing.. this made me want to ask, jehovah's witnesses stand up during the pledge of allegiance along with everyone else.
why is that ok but, it wasn't ok for shadrach , meshach and abednego to bow down to the king's idol ?
if the command had been for everyone who was sitting to stand at attention for the idol, wouldn't that have been the same thing ?
-
-
TD
I've never quite understood the distinction, to be honest.
In Western culture, standing up is a sign of respect, not an act of worship. You stand when a judge enters the courtroom. It doesn't mean you necessarily agree with the judge's decisions. You stand for the National Anthem. It doesn't mean you necessarily agree with a country's policies. In both cases, it's simply acknowledge of and respect for authority.
-
53
1975 on the back burner
by Fisherman in“1975” still marks 6000 years from the creation of adam in wt calendar.
according to “all scriptures inspired” book, there is a gap between the creation of adam and the creation of eve and her marriage to adam.
it was at that point in time when eve was created that marked the end of the 6th creative day and the beginning of god’s rest, the 7th day as recorded in genesis.
-
-
TD
On three separate occasions, JW's stated in writing that Eve was created in the same year as Adam. (Fred Franz joked about it from the platform as well, but not everybody remembers that.)
On several other occasions, JW literature asserted that Eve was also 130 years old when Seth was born, which is essentially the same thing.
JW literature prior to 1975 also speculated that Abel could have been as much as 100 years old at the time of his death. (Which was before the birth of Seth.)
Forgive me for asking, but do JW's still accept the 1975 date?
-
92
Chance or intelligent design?
by ExBethelitenowPIMA incofty could you answer how the single cell came about by chance?.
i know the argument for complexity in nature says natural selection over billions of years but this could not explain the complexity of the single cell the building blocks of life?.
-
-
TD
At the moment there still is no overwhelming evidence of the theory of evolution.
With respect, the basic building blocks of the theory, like genetic drift and speciation are very easy to illustrate.
If you can accept that the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) is not fertile with any other member of family Felidae, than you have accepted the concept of genetic drift. Species drift apart over time until full reproductive isolation eventually occurs.
If you can accept that the golden barrel cactus (Echinocactus grusonii) sprang from a chance hybridization in Central Mexico, than you have accepted the concept of speciation. In plants, hybridization can and does produce new species that are reproductively isolated from the parent species.
The origin(s) of life itself is not evolution. As Cofty pointed out, it is a related subject, called abiogenesis.
-
92
Chance or intelligent design?
by ExBethelitenowPIMA incofty could you answer how the single cell came about by chance?.
i know the argument for complexity in nature says natural selection over billions of years but this could not explain the complexity of the single cell the building blocks of life?.
-
-
TD
The challenge in forging any argument is to be careful that it doesn't cut both ways. The value of a sword that hurts you as much as it hurts your opponent is debatable.
For JW's this happens at a very basic level as a direct result of their insistence that the entire antediluvian world was vegetarian.
Since the decomposition chain is an integral part of every ecosystem, who designed the scavengers and other detrivores that devour dead bodies? What form of vegetarianism is that? Who designed it? If it wasn't designed, did it happen by "chance" after all?
Most proponents of ID are more studied in their approach and avoid such obvious pitfalls, but this problem persists in even the most sophisticated ID arguments.
Consider, for example, the life-cycle of the protozoan responsible for malaria. Plasmodium falciparum is a very nasty little creature that reproduces both sexually and asexually, the former in mosquitoes and the latter in humans.
When a female Anopheline mosquito bites an infected victim, it consumes both male and female malarial gametocytes in the victim’s blood. Within the mosquito’s midgut, the male gametocyte undergoes a nuclear division, producing eight flagellated microgametes which fertilize the female macrogamete. The resulting ookinete traverses the mosquito gut wall, forming an oocyst on the outside of the organ. After a few hours, the oocyst ruptures, releasing hundreds of sporozoites into the mosquito body cavity where they migrate to the mosquito salivary gland.
Infection in humans begins with the bite of the infected mosquito. The sporozoites released from the salivary glands of the mosquito enter the bloodstream and invade liver cells. (Hepatocytes) During the next 14 days these parasites differentiate and undergo asexual multiplication resulting in tens of thousands of merozoites which then burst from the infected hepatocyte, into the blood stream. These merozoites now invade red blood cells (Erythrocytes) and undergo an additional round of multiplication, producing more merozoites. Some of these go on to invade additional erythrocytes and while others now differentiate into the sexual forms, male and female gametocytes. These gametocytes will be taken up by the next female Anopheline mosquito that bites.
This is a complicated process involving two distinct synchronous vectors and yet, malaria spreads at an alarming rate. The reason for this merciless efficiency is because P. falciparum facilitates its spread by actually making its human victims more attractive to mosquitoes.
Was this nastiness designed or was it "chance?" A Creator who would design such a thing is very far removed from anything we would view as "good" or "loving." And yet if it happened by "chance" than proponents of ID fall under the shadow of their own argument.
-
208
How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?
by psyco ini remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
-
-
TD
I also now think it is possible that the archaeological dates....
You might find the comments of David Tarler interesting in this regard.
In 1997, the JW's published an article entitled, Jerusalem in Bible Times, What Does Archaeology Reveal? which mentioned both David Tarler and Jane Cahill by name.
----------
This was Tarler's response: (via email)
I am not familiar with the article you cited - and I would appreciate receiving a copy of it - but I never said that the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. I do not think that, today, archeologists could differentiate between 607 B.C.E. and 587 B.C.E. material cultural remains. Assuming that there are material remains from a 604 B.C.E. destruction at Tel Miqne/Ekron and from a 587 B.C.E. destruction at the City of David/Jerusalem, comprehensive analysis of these remains conceivably could yield chronological indicators for other sites, but even then, the archeological conclusions would derive from those assumed dates; the dates themselves would not derive from the archeology.
David Tarler
----------
This was Jane Cahill's response: (Also via email)
No, I have no idea what this guy is talking about. I have never heard of the Watchtower Society, I have never published anything suggesting that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE, and - as far as I know - Yigal never published anything like that either. I would respond that I know of no evidence supporting such a date. Hope that answers your query.
Take care!
Jane Cahill
-
208
How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?
by psyco ini remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
-
-
TD
I have no iron in this fire and this is not even really "my subject" to be honest. It really doesn't matter to me if the correct date is 587 or 607, but there's things I honestly don't understand on this thread. (Which drives me up the wall...)
On page 8, Rattigan350 said:
It was Nelson Barbour in 1881 that added the 20 years because he thought 587 would lead to a 50 year desolation.
In Three Worlds, Barbour starts with 536 BC, which he believed to be the first year of Cyrus, and counts back 70 years to arrive at 606 BC. Barbour was neither the first, nor the last to rely at least partially upon Ussher's Annales Veteris Testamenfi because the cuneiform artifacts which have caused the disagreement discussed on this thread were still being unearthed at the time.
1881 was a few years after Barbour's separation from Russell, so I am curious about the captioned statement above, and what, if any, connection it has to the JW's. Barbour faded off into obscurity and eventually lost interest in the Adventist approach, from what I understand.
On page 16 of this thread, Fisherman said:
How does concluding that Judah went captive to Babylon for 70 years and Zion lay desolate for 70 years, The 70 years ended when the king of Babylon saw the handwriting on the wall goes against grammar?
By my calculation (Again, perhaps wrong) this would have been the 68th year, which does not strike me as a simple, direct and grammatical reading of Jeremiah 25:12
"But when 70 years have been fulfilled..." NWT
"και εν τω πληρωθήναι τα εβδομήκοντα έτη..." LXX
"...וְהָיָה כִמְלֹאות שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה אֶפְקֹד" MT
All three phrases require posteriority of the condition(s) they reference and it would take a clever explanation indeed to overcome that fact. Even then, it would not be a simple, plain reading.
I don't want to argue, but I am (understandably) curious.
-
29
why are we interested in what is going on in the JW
by enoughisenough infor the most of us, we have left the jws...and even though we are no longer jw, many of us are still interested in their beliefs, doctrines and practices as currently practiced.
i was trying to sort out in my mind why i still care about what they are doing.
i think the answer to that is a hope that something will develop in the jws that will wake up a lot of others, and selfishly, a lot of my friends.
-
-
TD
Some of us have JW family even if we were never JW's ourselves. Siblings, aged parents, even spouses. You can't just turn your back and pretend that reality doesn't exist, especially in the case of a spouse.
-
72
Prediction of Watchtower in a Few Years
by Foolednomore inkingdom halls will be the thing of the past.. conventions (mini assembly halls will still be going on) but will charge for attending and parking and always a donation.
elders will play a much smaller role since csa.
cart preaching will replace door to door.
-
-
TD
Once upon a time, before the internet, before satellite, before cable and even before color television, three or maybe even four black and white channels that went off the air at 10:00pm, were the most that anyone had. For those who liked to read, this was the heyday of the dime store novel, but people were still bored out of their minds.
A knock at your door was a welcome diversion, as it could be a neighbor who was as bored as you were, or perhaps actually needed to borrow something. It could be the mailman, who could opt to put the mail directly in your hand and share news of the neighborhood if he had time. It could be a Fuller Brush man, selling high quality brushes you could not find in stores.
It could be an Electrolux, Kirby, Hoover or Eureka representative, selling a new appliance called a vacuum cleaner, which not only eliminated the drudgery of beating carpets, but kept your house cleaner and healthier for crawling babies as well.
It could be a Britannica, Americana or Funk & Wagnalls representative who could sell you your very own set of encyclopedias. If you didn't own a set or know someone who did, your children would have to go to the public library for school assignments, which was not always practical if it wasn't within walking distance.
It was during this era that door to door evangelism was born. And it worked for the same reasons. Women (Because they were left home alone to raise the children) and to a lesser degree, men, were starving for social interaction.
Today, a knock on your door generally means something is wrong and not surprisingly, it instantly puts people on the defensive. Door to door evangelism is not nearly as effective as it once was, if it's even effective at all anymore.
JW's have their traditions, but like any successful movement, they will have to adapt.