June 2010 Awake! more duplicity.....

by Hobo Ken 20 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Black Sheep

  Cutting edge science and Arctic adventure come alive in this story of a unique discovery: a perfectly preserved baby woolly mammoth that suddenly appears on a Siberian riverbank, triggering an extraordinary investigation into her life and death at the end of the Ice Age. Solving the mystery of her origins unites men whose lives are worlds apart except for their link to the woolly mammoth. The film interweaves the stories of the nomadic reindeer herder who found 40-thousand-year-old Baby Lyuba -- and a renowned paleontologist who attempts to unlock her secrets. Following Baby Lyubas trail from the Siberian tundra to high tech labs across the globe, they search for clues that will reveal how she emerged into the 21st century, why she stayed so remarkably intact, and what the secrets hidden in her body may ultimately reveal about her life and the world of the woolly mammoth before the great extinctions.

  http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/waking-the-baby-mammoth

  The writing dept. has never had a problem with lying by omission.

  Cheers

  Chris
• 

  BabaYaga

  Great find, Hobo Ken.

  And Dinah... I think you're right on with the "lead to believe", "apparently" and "evidently".
• 

  andy5421

  Anytime they say "lead to believe" or "apparently" it means the bullshit is to follow. "Evidently" is another one.

  Weasel Words:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
• 

  JWoods

  Didn't they "sort of" give up the 7,000 year creative days some years back? Of course, they didn't really say this in clear terms -

  Of course, if they want to say this Mammoth died in the flood it would still be only 4000 years or so old if you take the bible dates literally...and of course you would also have to explain how it ended up frozen in snow and ice. The young age is no problem if you simply choose to not believe in carbon dating, I guess.

  However - the bible says it was a flood, not an ice storm or a blizzard. The JWs used to teach that the earth was tropical from pole to pole because of the "water canopy" before the flood.

  Edit to say - excellent find on this, Hobo -
• 

  notverylikely

  The JWs used to teach that the earth was tropical from pole to pole because of the "water canopy" before the flood.

  Well why not? They've got such an awesome track record at explaining how to earth was created, how old it is, when it will end....surely climatology and meteorology is no problem for them.
• 

  JWoods

  Well why not? They've got such an awesome track record at explaining how to earth was created, how old it is, when it will end....surely climatology and meteorology is no problem for them.

  I don't know if they still teach this, but it was a pretty big deal with them in the 1960s. I distinctly remember them saying that there were fossils of animals and trees in Antartica, for example - and that the tropical pre-flood whole earth was the reason.
• 

  notverylikely

  I don't know if they still teach this, but it was a pretty big deal with them in the 1960s. I distinctly remember them saying that there were fossils of animals and trees in Antartica, for example - and that the tropical pre-flood whole earth was the reason.

  They do. However, they manage to pull that off without admitting that maybe those things are there because the continents move and millions of years ago Antarctica was in a more temperate zone while simultaneously saying the flood caused all the continents to move.

  And "unofficially" they still teach that all the animals got to different places on the earth because of land bridges or something wacky, which would explain why kangaroos are ONLY in australia.
• 

  Darth plaugeis

  Such as how could an animal have been in ice for 40,000 years when according to JW dogma there was a worldwide flood only 4000 years ago prior to which they allege there was a sub tropical world where there could not exist large Glaciers such as the one described?

  The Earth conditions always slipped by me when thinking of Ice Age. Your right it couldn't have happened. Hahaha
• 

  JWoods

  And "unofficially" they still teach that all the animals got to different places on the earth because of land bridges or something wacky, which would explain why kangaroos are ONLY in australia.

  Yup, remember that one too. However, they did not think of the simple fact that land bridges do not explain why kangaroos and Koala Bears chose ONLY the land bridge to Australia and nowhere else...or the simple fact that the land bridges would have had to exist only 4,000 years ago by their own chronology.

  Remember too - they used to say that the animals on the ark were not really every species we have today, but sort of precursor super-species - maybe only one uber-cat to become lions, tigers, leapards, and such. One uber-elephant to become the african and indian types, and so on...which is of course dangerously close to unwittingly endorsing Darwinian "natural selection of the species".
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Thanks for noticing this. I don't have it anymore, but I remember reading one of their articles that blasted a college education and they totally took some other journals out of context to do it. The other articles were generally saying that an IVY LEAGUE education was not for everyone but still recommended a good college education. WT left out pertinent points just as they do with the article you refer to.

  I would not trust them to put a stamp on an envelope.

  I would automatically assume WTS was mistaken or lying on anything they say and trust the opposite until proven otherwise. If I were a betting man, I would be right most of the time if I bet that credible sources say the opposite of WTS.

  I remember reading all about the baby mammoth discovery in National Geographic. I thought the story was fascinating. If I still read Awake, I would have known their story was leaving important stuff out.