JWs take on Ice Age?

Inquisitor

...not the computer animation!

When I was a JW kid, I got the impression that JWs (like other die-hard creationists) attributed all evidences of an ice age to the Noachian Flood. Problem is, that point of view seems to think that the polar ice caps are the only natural phenomenon that needed explanation (read "explaining away").

The Noachian Flood perspective does not explain what large glaciers are doing in places like Papua New Guniea or New Zealand.

The same biblical explanation also does not address the evidence for multiple (~4?) ice ages. It engulfs all the physical evidence as coming from one single catastrophic event, for there was only one Flood of Noah.

Well, that was my impression anyway. Is this accurate?

INQ

OnTheWayOut

My take on JW's doctrine is that one flood of the waters above the
earth explains it all.

They don't want an ice age in any theories, because they say that
Man is a bit over 6000 years old, and the animals- while older than
Adam- were created shortly before Adam.

The flood and atmospheric changes explaining it all away are supposed
to be an answer to the evolutionists.

Don't try too hard to over-analyze JW doctrines according to science.
They don't add up well.

Arthur

To try to deny the ice age on theological grounds is rediculous. The geological strata around the globe all reveals multiple swings in climate and global temperature. To try to attribute all of this evidence to a global flood is childish. The WTS has relied heavily on the speculations of geologists from the nineteenth century who attributed geological anomalies to Noah's flood. There's a problem with this: geologists have learned a few things in the last 100 years. The evidence for the ice age through discoveries in geology, climatology, and biology of extict species is pretty much iron-clad.

For instance: ice cores in Greenland, and Antarctica have been analyzed, and have been found to show consistent, anual layers going back over 10,000 years which show absolutely no disruptions or changes in oxygen content which would have been present if there had been a global flood.

Also; many of the frozen mamoths that have been discovered were found in an upright standing position. One specimen had both of it's hind legs broken. It is clear that several died not from drowning; but by falling into crevices and being burried by snow drifts.

There are many more examples of evidence for the ice age. For more information, you can go to:

talkorigins.org

Pubsinger

They liked it but they said it wasn't as good as Monsters Inc.

AllAlongTheWatchtower

The simple answer is, I don't think they really DO think about such things, not much or for long...it strains their faith, which leads to guilt that they had doubts. The standard answers then become either "God lets it appear this way to test our faith" or "The Devil is tempting/deceiving you". Part of the problem being that JWs are discouraged from higher education, where they might actually learn enough science to make the lightbulb appear over their heads. There are lots of examples of this, when I was growing up in the WWCG (which is quite similar to JWs), a few fun questions to ask older people were:

Did you know that even at lightspeed, when you look at the sun what you're seeing is actually light that has been on it's way 8 minutes ago? (Many will want to appear knowledgable, or may have even heard this factoid before, so will answer "yes") Then you hit them- Well, did you also know that it takes roughly 2 1/2 million years before the light from Andromeda reaches us? (This will stump most of them, but if you can get them to accept the premise, you've got them in a corner already, they just don't know it.) So, if it took 2 1/2 million years for that light to get here...what does that mean to the creation theory, where the earth is only 6,000 years old? Most will hem and haw and fade back into pat answers or the ever present "god works in mysterious ways" / "we can't begin to understand the god-tastic universe". Just a few... a very few, may begin to think.

Diamonds was another favorite of mine in this category...most women have at least their wedding ring if married, or a favorite pair of earrings, whatever- people are basically familiar with diamonds. So you ask them, "Did you know it takes millions of years to form first coal, then diamonds, from carbon?" You see where I'm going with this, and many times they would too... standard answers were often something on the lines of "God must have created them already made".

Trying to talk too much logic with people mislead into controlled paths such as the JWs or WWCG is much like trying to win an arguement with a kid over Superman. "Superman is ultimately strong, he can break anything". "Superman is ultimately tough, he can take anything". Oh yeah kid? So what if big bad Superman punched himself? *blank stare*

OnTheWayOut

So, if it took 2 1/2 million years for that light to get here...what does that mean to the creation theory, where the earth is only 6,000 years old?

You have to really understand the silly science of WTS, and how it can start to make sense.

The earth was formed before all the stuff on it, along with the heavens (stars and such).
Genesis 1:1 says- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

That puts no time frame at all on stars and the lifeless planet. They could be billions of years old,
according to WTS science. Even putting the "7000 years to a creative day" nonsense in, the earth
and heavens were here before the 49000 years (7 days times 7000 years) of everything else in history.

That means rocks can be found that are millions of years old, but science that shows that
your layers of ice are ancient, well- Mankind just doesn't get everything right. And don't forget, they
have abandoned their "7000 years to a creative day" stuff as the light got brighter. They never
admitted it was wrong, just stopped teaching it.

The flood supposedly explains away the inaccuracies of carbon dating, it changed the surface of
the earth, making mountains higher than they were in the days, it destroyed the Garden of Eden,
allowing the guards at the gate to return to heaven, yet geographic descriptions from before the
flood are supposed to continue as valid after the flood.

Again, don't over-analyze their science. It's just nonsense.

Roger

I agree OTWO, it's not profitable to overanalyze the half-baked attempts to explain scientific phenomenon in line with biblical ideas. And don't forget, if there's ever a conflict, it's god you should rely on and not haughty and arrogant men.

Just last weekend, I was at my (witness) parents house playing Trivial Pursuit with them and a couple of their old friends from the hall (who are all remarkably tolerant of me). We've generally reached quite a civil level of relationship, don't bring up inflammatory topics so much, but this night there came up a question on Quantum Theory, that radiation energy is released in 'discrete packets', not just waves.

My dad was a little tipsy by this point, and obviously forgot our conventions. 'Packets?', he exclaimed. 'Doesn't that imply someone has to package them, like a Designer?'

I have to admit, I was a little surprised, and entirely sober, and didn't want to make an issue there and then, when I felt I could have taken him apart in front of his friends. So I just muttered something about it being an intrinsic property of energy, but wish I could have come up with something a little more punchy. This was MY domain, and I am not having them taking clumsy punches at the mass of scientific knowledge on the back of some crap they've read in the Awake. Their 'science' is nothing of the sort, and they KNOW that, and turn a blind eye to it.

Sorry about the hi-jack, glad I got that bee out my bonnet.

Woodsman

clumsy punches at the mass of scientific knowledge on the back of some crap they've read in the Awake.

Dude,

That is an awesome effin quote.

JWs take on Ice Age?

Share this