FYI at the last DC they released a couple of new brochures on evolution vs. creation
Do they still have that sky blue book on Creation vs Evolution?
Evolutionists and Creationists do seem to argue over who laid the first Egg
Fortunately the Creation Book settled it all
oh geeez more nightmares of giving a talk at an LA College on the Creation Book aaaaaahh
One of the things that set me straight,was when I found out that book misquoted the late Carl Sagan the astronomer indicating he supported their veiw of a personal creator.I wonder if anybody can enlighten me as to when carl sagans criticism of jw`s in "Broccas Brain" was b4 the "evolution"book was printed or after it was printed.Just curious.
@smiddy: It appears from a quick google search that Broca's Brain was released in 1979. Well before Creation/Evolution book..which I believe was around 1985...give or take. I had never read that passage by Sagan, thanks for pointing it out. World needs more Carl Sagans.
@NomadSoul: Very cool we were on the same wavelength around the same age. That's why I'm thrilled to have found this forum. A place to find like-minded individuals who know the conflicts and issues of having been a JW, and the troubles in shedding that skin. Intellectual freedom rocks!
I love Carl Sagan's work, although I discovered them after my 20's. Wish I could've discovered them in my teens. I have watched the series Cosmos about 5 times ( I make anyone who visits me watch it, lol) And read a couple of his books, but I didn't know about the Broca's Brain comment.
Doctrines that make no predictions are less compelling than those which make correct predictions; they are in turn more successful than doctrines that make false predictions.
But not always. One prominent American religion confidently predicted that the world would end in 1914. Well, 1914 has come and gone, and -- while the events of that year were certainly of some importance -- the world does not, at least so far as I can see, seem to have ended. There are at least three responses that an organized religion can make in the face of such a failed and fundamental prophecy. They could have said, "Oh, did we say '1914'? So sorry, we meant '2014.' A slight error in calculation. Hope you weren't inconvenienced in any way." But they did not. They could have said, "Well, the world would have ended, except we prayed very hard and interceded with God so He spared the Earth." But they did not. Instead, they did something much more ingenious.
They announced that the world had in fact ended in 1914, and if the rest of us hadn't noticed, that was our lookout. It is astonishing in the face of such transparent evasions that this religion has any adherents at all. But religions are tough. Either they make no contentions which are subject to disproof or they quickly redesign doctrine after disproof. The fact that religions can be so shamelessly dishonest, so contemptuous of the intelligence of their adherents, and still flourish does not speak very well for the tough-mindedness of the believers. But it does indicate, if a demonstration were needed, that near the core of the religious experience is something remarkably resistant to rational inquiry.
Thanks for the info!