News5 mins ago
jehovas witnesses
80 Answers
Had a couple of JW's at the door today. One of them, an elderly lady, called a few weeks ago and we had a 'friendly' discusion then about the origins of the universe etc. However, not been scientifically minded, I wasnt entirely to refute what she was saying. Today, however, she (and her friend) started on the old 'evolution is just a theory' argument and the 'scientists think that we evolved from monkeys' argument, both of which I could quickly debunk. However, when I asked if they had ever read any Richard Dawkins material (I have) they asked who Richard Dawkins was??? The mind boggles. Probably the most famous creationist debunker on the planet and they had NEVER heard of him??...they asked if I meant HAWKINS???
No doubt they will be back again in the next week or so (particularly as I am always friendly to these self deluded folk... no need to be hostile towards the deluded).
Has anyone got any good questions that I could ask them (particularly re: evolution/creationism) that might make them think for themselves a little bit rather than reading the rubbish that they have to read in their magazines. (they gave me a magazine today, devoted to creationism)
It doesnt have to be the creation/evolution angle, anything that might make them think a little would be helpful.
(as I have a friend who is of the 'born again' variety, it could be usefull for him as well)
Thanks...
No doubt they will be back again in the next week or so (particularly as I am always friendly to these self deluded folk... no need to be hostile towards the deluded).
Has anyone got any good questions that I could ask them (particularly re: evolution/creationism) that might make them think for themselves a little bit rather than reading the rubbish that they have to read in their magazines. (they gave me a magazine today, devoted to creationism)
It doesnt have to be the creation/evolution angle, anything that might make them think a little would be helpful.
(as I have a friend who is of the 'born again' variety, it could be usefull for him as well)
Thanks...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by kryptic. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Had them turn up on a Sunday afternoon many years ago when the ex and I were childless. living in an apartment. The place was darkened as we had grabbed an afternoon nap after a late night the evening before.
As they launched into their pitch, I asked them to hold on and launched into my own pitch of "This is a God-Fearing Methodist household. How dare you work on the Sabbath, God's day of rest. Just look, we keep the curtains closed on the Sabbath, only read the Bible and our children play with biblical toys."
They turned around and fled - also think that we got the mark as we were never bothered again by them while we lived there. The ex was pizzing herself with laughter....
As they launched into their pitch, I asked them to hold on and launched into my own pitch of "This is a God-Fearing Methodist household. How dare you work on the Sabbath, God's day of rest. Just look, we keep the curtains closed on the Sabbath, only read the Bible and our children play with biblical toys."
They turned around and fled - also think that we got the mark as we were never bothered again by them while we lived there. The ex was pizzing herself with laughter....
Being as they claim Adam and Eve were created by God and not born, why have they got belly buttons and being as Adam was created by God why has he got nipples , mammary glands and blood vessals and vestiges of other other female bit and bobs which I wont go into. Evolution explains all this but Genesis can not .
Adam ,Eve ,Cain and ABel make 4 people. Cain kills Abel that makes 3. Cain travels to the land of Nod where he finds a wife, where from ? He then builds a city ? For whom ? In all his travels and later when Noah built the ark they never mention the millions of dinosaurs. In fact although Genesis is the story of creation why are such dominant creatures not given a mention.
When the whole world was covered in water over 6 miles deep for just on 12 months which destroyed every land living organism how was Noahs dove able to bring back a living olive leaf.
Adam ,Eve ,Cain and ABel make 4 people. Cain kills Abel that makes 3. Cain travels to the land of Nod where he finds a wife, where from ? He then builds a city ? For whom ? In all his travels and later when Noah built the ark they never mention the millions of dinosaurs. In fact although Genesis is the story of creation why are such dominant creatures not given a mention.
When the whole world was covered in water over 6 miles deep for just on 12 months which destroyed every land living organism how was Noahs dove able to bring back a living olive leaf.
khandro I was answering the request by krpto for questions to put to the JWs who do take Genesis as the literal truth and therefore have to be challenged in kind. They are not receptive to any other beliefs whether secular or religious. They do not have a broad view of God , their's is a very narrow view based on the mythology of the OT .
Beso - “Some animals that live in the Arctic has ultraviolet vision because snow and ice reflect it.”
I know. Amazing isn't it? Also, it has to be said that the human eye is pretty poor in low light conditions compared to say, a dog or a cat as we lack a tapetum lucidum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapetum_lucidum
Another example, if one were needed, that bears out your statement, “There are many examples of very poor engineering in the design of animals...”. And we are, of course, just animals. I have some information that my be of interest to you but I don't really want to post it directly onto here; is there any chance you can contact me on [email protected]. It would be difficult to argue that we humans would be worse off with an increased ability to see well in the dark. God must have been having an 'off' day when he designed human beings.
I know. Amazing isn't it? Also, it has to be said that the human eye is pretty poor in low light conditions compared to say, a dog or a cat as we lack a tapetum lucidum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapetum_lucidum
Another example, if one were needed, that bears out your statement, “There are many examples of very poor engineering in the design of animals...”. And we are, of course, just animals. I have some information that my be of interest to you but I don't really want to post it directly onto here; is there any chance you can contact me on [email protected]. It would be difficult to argue that we humans would be worse off with an increased ability to see well in the dark. God must have been having an 'off' day when he designed human beings.
I was told many years ago by a JW who was on evening Spanish class with me that if you don't wish them to come to your door, just tell them that you don't wish to receive any more visits and will they make a note of that. It definitely worked for me. I quite liked this lady but she was always trying to convert me in subtle ways so our friendship ended with the course.
Of course the reason the retina is build back to front is the first steps toward what became the vertebrate eye started out that way when it was a nothing more than a clump of nerves that could detect a light.
Even though the information still has a lot of gaps we are so lucky to live at a time when science can trace trace the development of our evolution from the earliest creatures.
Yes, it's all very fascinating.
Even though the information still has a lot of gaps we are so lucky to live at a time when science can trace trace the development of our evolution from the earliest creatures.
Yes, it's all very fascinating.
Not read the 3 pages of already existing stuff, but:
If someone comes up with that "evolution is only a theory" nonsense that make a mental note that they have no idea what the word theory means, and ask them is that means gravity is only a theory, and would they come down off the ceiling to answer the question.
I have no problem with folk expressing their beliefs, but they ought to have at least an inkling of what they are trying to criticize.
But IMO one ought to stay well away from Dawkin's comments on religion. He can talk about evolution with a degree of skill, but one has only to try to read his God Delusion book to see his arguments are weak and he merely uses it to insult anyone who doesn't agree with him. Since there is no use yelling at a book, and less use getting het up about what it contains, I guess I can not be the only one to give up after about half way through the abuse.
Rather than rely on books I'd suggest just using rational discussion. At least in a face to face situation there is dialogue rather than just lecture.
If someone comes up with that "evolution is only a theory" nonsense that make a mental note that they have no idea what the word theory means, and ask them is that means gravity is only a theory, and would they come down off the ceiling to answer the question.
I have no problem with folk expressing their beliefs, but they ought to have at least an inkling of what they are trying to criticize.
But IMO one ought to stay well away from Dawkin's comments on religion. He can talk about evolution with a degree of skill, but one has only to try to read his God Delusion book to see his arguments are weak and he merely uses it to insult anyone who doesn't agree with him. Since there is no use yelling at a book, and less use getting het up about what it contains, I guess I can not be the only one to give up after about half way through the abuse.
Rather than rely on books I'd suggest just using rational discussion. At least in a face to face situation there is dialogue rather than just lecture.
OG, I agree very much with what you say about Dawkins; he seems to be in the hole he has made for himself and continues to dig furiously in an attempt to prove he is right, no room for a rational discussion with him methinks, he is as adamant that he sees the truth, just as much as the JW's. Personally, I think only a fool would refute Darwin, but I also think that (as did CD himself), it isn't the complete answer as to how we came to be here - I mean primordial soup, and flashes of lightning etc - I don't think so.
My favourite JW conversation...
JW Do you believe AIDs is gods punshment for homosexuals
Me No I believe AIDs is irrefutable proof God is a lesbian as it is far harder to get it from lesbian sex
JW makes strange choking noises hurrying down the path...
Well if they load my gun they must expect me to fire it.....
JW Do you believe AIDs is gods punshment for homosexuals
Me No I believe AIDs is irrefutable proof God is a lesbian as it is far harder to get it from lesbian sex
JW makes strange choking noises hurrying down the path...
Well if they load my gun they must expect me to fire it.....
Kryptic.
The JW's are strong in there belief about, we are in the end of days. I.e the Book of Daniel 9:24-27. They (JW) calculate that the end of days would start in 1914- WW1.
However, since that part of the book of Daniel (there were several authors)was not written until 164c BC during the Hellenistic age and not 6th century BC as they claim. It's at odds.
So, it does not refer to a "prophecy" of the birth of Christ in the calculation. Moreover and best, is that the JW believe the fall of Jerusalem was in 607 BC, it was in fact 586(7), so there prophecy is false. And they won't here of it!
Throughout most of Daniel's book he is referring to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, as Daniel and co were in Babylonian captivity and that is what Daniel was writing about, past and upcoming events of the Syrian invasion. Not the distant future.
Also, I quoted one of Nietzcshe's maxims and they'd never heard of him. They seem vert eager to tell their "true story" even though the word Jehovah never appears in any Hebrew scripts at all.
The JW's are strong in there belief about, we are in the end of days. I.e the Book of Daniel 9:24-27. They (JW) calculate that the end of days would start in 1914- WW1.
However, since that part of the book of Daniel (there were several authors)was not written until 164c BC during the Hellenistic age and not 6th century BC as they claim. It's at odds.
So, it does not refer to a "prophecy" of the birth of Christ in the calculation. Moreover and best, is that the JW believe the fall of Jerusalem was in 607 BC, it was in fact 586(7), so there prophecy is false. And they won't here of it!
Throughout most of Daniel's book he is referring to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, as Daniel and co were in Babylonian captivity and that is what Daniel was writing about, past and upcoming events of the Syrian invasion. Not the distant future.
Also, I quoted one of Nietzcshe's maxims and they'd never heard of him. They seem vert eager to tell their "true story" even though the word Jehovah never appears in any Hebrew scripts at all.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV10 mins ago
News24 mins ago
Tree Slayers Case Moved To The Crown...
News26 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles30 mins ago
News61 mins ago
