as part of my deconversion catharsis, i have been building a(nother) website to highlight some of the more ridiculous jw beliefs.
im a looong way from done, but i wanted some early feedback on one article: dinosaurs.
http://www.jwbeliefs.com/dinosaurs/.
It's interesting when people who can't seem to grasp contempory writings in their own language with symbols they fully understand contextually are able to perfectly decipher old bits of carved rocks with little context.
Even the most learned archeologist struggles with that poorly.
as part of my deconversion catharsis, i have been building a(nother) website to highlight some of the more ridiculous jw beliefs.
im a looong way from done, but i wanted some early feedback on one article: dinosaurs.
http://www.jwbeliefs.com/dinosaurs/.
James Brown yes, there are many ancient stories of humans fighting dragons, and giant worms, and stories of sirens calling sailors to their death, stories of mermaids, and cyclops, and dwarves, fairies, elves and unicorns. And much more. Everyone of these mythical creatures can have some seed in reality. A giant worm reminds us of a snake. Dwarves, fairies, elves have human like features. Unicorns and pegasuses (that's the plural, I looked it up) look like horses.
Do you dismiss all of these other creatures as human creations where certain traits were exaggerted, or traits were combined, then mixed with some good storytelling, took on a life of their own? If you do, then why not dragons? Dragons are great. I love them. But when we transfer these creatures to reality, then we have to look at the evidence. You said you are willing to consider alternative explanations for the dragon myths. What do you think of the alternative explanations offered regarding dragons/dinos? Do you think they have some credence?
as part of my deconversion catharsis, i have been building a(nother) website to highlight some of the more ridiculous jw beliefs.
im a looong way from done, but i wanted some early feedback on one article: dinosaurs.
http://www.jwbeliefs.com/dinosaurs/.
James Brown, Can you consider a competing story? No, they didn't have pictures 800 years ago, but they did have fossils. They had no way to understand them though. So creative minds made stories around them. Do you believe in cyclops? Do you know, if you hold a mammoth skull upright, the nasal opening looks like an eye socket, giving the impression that this is the skull of a giant one-eyed creature? There is a hyposthesis that this is where the seed of that fantastical creature starts. The same goes for dragon myths. Unearth a dino skull, fill in the blanks, and you get dragons.
I'm just suggesting that in the absence of good explanations, it might be a good thing to look at other possible explanations that are more in line with the evidence. Dinosaur fossils are never found to be contemporary with human fossils. The evidence suggests that they did not live at the same time. But the dinos did leave behind some clues.
Maybe that's not even the best explanation either, and some new knowledge will come along and new hypotheses will grow out of that. But it's always good to consider the evidence when rebuilding the story.
as part of my deconversion catharsis, i have been building a(nother) website to highlight some of the more ridiculous jw beliefs.
im a looong way from done, but i wanted some early feedback on one article: dinosaurs.
http://www.jwbeliefs.com/dinosaurs/.
Apognophos , C14 is only one method of dating, and in many ways is limited since it can only be used with accuracy to around 50,000 and 60,000 years.
There are many other forms of dating, and these can be even more informative. The jackpot is when more than one method can be used, and they agree.
Sometimes, creationists focus heavily on C14, which is ironic, since C14 doesn't necessarily even address the bigger debate. It works on things that are much younger.
There is relative dating. In other words, simply taking evidence around objects that can tell which are older etc in relation to each other. And absolute dating, which gives an actual span on the age of the object.
I will just copy a list of absolute dating methods and hope the links come through.
Dating is complex. Different situations require different methods, and each method has its limitations. It would be easy to find some weakness in one method in some situations, but when the process is taken as a whole, it serves us quite well.
as part of my deconversion catharsis, i have been building a(nother) website to highlight some of the more ridiculous jw beliefs.
im a looong way from done, but i wanted some early feedback on one article: dinosaurs.
http://www.jwbeliefs.com/dinosaurs/.
Yes, Apognophos, I conceded that in my comment. It is very difficult to nail down. However, just for accuracy's sake, I think they no longer accept the 7,000 years either. Here is part one of their answer:
Length of the six days of creation. Some creationists assert that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour days. But the word “day” in the Bible can refer to a considerable length of time.—Genesis 2:4; Psalm 90:4.
Later, they've taken to referring to those 'days' as time periods, leaving them undefined.
They are in a pickle! They are concerned that they look scientific, but at the same time, their belief is not supported by science, and they don't know what science will come up with next. They've had a number of humiliating mistakes where they have had to rewrite past understandings.
Their other problem is that they don't want to be identified too closely with other creationists. In fact, they insist that they are not creationists because they don't believe in 24 hour creative days.
I agree that they are a strange mixture of old-young earth creationists, but I would add one more descriptor. old-young-undetermined creationists. I believe they are leaving this ambiguous on purpose. They don't want to be identified as creationists, yet they are creationists, so that moves them to be vague.
Bloody Hotdogs! I think in the end, you will not get a clear answer, and that's on purpose. Also, I think if you do some research, there is a great deal of scientific commentary on the flood. You are considering two options, but there are many more.
Here is one problem with the water canopy hypothesis:
Vapor canopy. This model, proposed by Whitcomb & Morris and others, proposes that much of the Flood water was suspended overhead until the 40 days of rain which caused the Flood. The following objections are covered in more detail by Brown.
as part of my deconversion catharsis, i have been building a(nother) website to highlight some of the more ridiculous jw beliefs.
im a looong way from done, but i wanted some early feedback on one article: dinosaurs.
http://www.jwbeliefs.com/dinosaurs/.
You can find their current understanding on their website. I think they likely qualify as old earth creationists today--their past was different.
This may just be creative wording. They allow for the earth to be billions of years old, but they are vague when it comes to the six days of creation. The way it's worded still allows for dinos to be pretty recent...or not.
http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/creationism-belief/
Age of the earth. Some creationists teach that the earth is just a few thousand years old. However, according to the Bible, the earth and the universe existed before the six days of creation. (Genesis 1:1) For that reason, Jehovah’s Witnesses have no objection to credible scientific research that indicates the earth may be billions of years old.
in the first post in this series i discussed the identity of the watchtower as per revelation 13. the second post dealt with the identity of the harlot and the scarlet beast.
this post will deal with the third element "the image of the beast", lets read revelation 13:15-17:.
the second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.
