by unstopableravens 273 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I was just answering someone's question, Cofty. Honestly, I would not purposely derail any thread. There have been lots of comments that have not been about the book.
I will however take this particular conversation with mP elsewhere if he would like to continue.
Peace,
tammy
cofty: alot of it was clear, i understood his point about crocaduck, and monkeys and humans.that he showed his postion nicely, is there anything in the book you disagree with cofty?
TEC:
The Spirit of Christ... the Teacher... gave me this understanding.
I learned little bits and pieces first.
mP:
Tammy, im always open for discussion.
Oh voices in your head, then it must be true right ? Hitler, Muhammad, Joan of Arc, they all had voices intheir head and it was all true.
Why dont you ask Jesus to give you the answer to cure cancer, rather than wasting precious megabytes sending you info like this about Adam & Eve ?
TEC:
There are many names that have meaning other than just their name. But yes, I do know that.
As for different order of creation... Could be that one is general (like a summary)... and the other goes into more specifics. Why would there be two different accounts in one book, except to show the details surrounding something more specific?
mP:
From your reply it is obvious you have not examined the text with a critical eye. Read both Gen 1 and 2, taking notes of the order of man, woman, plants, creatures etc, then compare the two. They are not more specific, they are two different stories. This has been examined by scholars for hundreds of years and is part of the evidence in the Documentary Hyposis where they note that the OT is a mishmash of multiple accounts that are often contradictory.
As you have noted in the past, the Bible is not perfect, its very much the product of many men and has evolved considerable throughout its thousands of years. The only constant in the Bible is that it always changes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
ulius Wellhausen's contribution was to order these sources chronologically as JEDP, giving them a coherent setting in the evolving religious history of Israel, which he saw as one of ever-increasing priestly power. Wellhausen's formulation was:
- the Yahwist source ( J ) : written c. 950 BC in the southern Kingdom of Judah.
- the Elohist source ( E ) : written c. 850 BC in the northern Kingdom of Israel.
- the Deuteronomist ( D ) : written c. 600 BC in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
- the Priestly source ( P ) : written c. 500 BC by Kohanim (Jewish priests) in exile in Babylon.
BTW I have got and have read the magic of reality. It maybe aimed at children, but I have yet to find an adult who hasn't found it educational, and it expalins why we know the Earth is millions of years old...cantleave
I agree cantleave. I bought this book and read it BEFORE 'The Greatest Show on Earth'. It's a fabulous book. Loved it.
I'm glad I read it first.
If you want me to respond or for us to continue, mP, then I think we will have to move this discussion to anther thread, so that this thread remains about the Dawkins book.
Peace,
tammy
My only gripe about Dawkins is i think he should read up about ancient religions show he can better quote concepts from the Bible that are pathetic and a joke. Once people start to see these, they realise its not from a better or scientific genius but is simply the product of ancient man and his backward explainations.
Some people here are wondering how Dawkins can give certain facts, and yet they never question the fact how the gospels are nt even sure how Judas died or what the name of the apostles were.
I personally found the information in the book about how the different methods of dating worked to be the most difficult to undertand. I had to read it over quite a few times just to get a grip on what a 'half life' even meant.
Hopefully I understand this right. Carbon dating is not used to tell how old the earth is because the material breaks down too quickly for that. It is a tool to measure the age of organic material such as wood, leather etc. And cannot tell the age of anything older than around 60,000 years. Thats why it is usefull for things like religious artifacts and writings but tells you nothing about the age of the earth. For that you need other methods of dating with longer half lives.
This may help a bit...
As we have mentioned before each radioactive isotope has its own decay pattern. Not only does it decay by giving off energy and matter, but it also decays at a rate that is characteristic to itself. The rate at which a radioactive isotope decays is measured in half-life. The term half-life is defined as the time it takes for one-half of the atoms of a radioactive material to disintegrate. Half-lives for various radioisotopes can range from a few microseconds to billions of years. See the table below for a list of radioisotopes and each of unique their half-lives.
| Radioisotope | Half-life |
| Polonium-215 | 0.0018 seconds |
| Bismuth-212 | 60.5 seconds |
| Sodium-24 | 15 hours |
| Iodine-131 | 8.07 days |
| Cobalt-60 | 5.26 years |
| Radium-226 | 1600 years |
| Uranium-238 | 4.5 billion years |
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/HighSchool/Radiography/halflife2.htm
I know how carbon dating works. It doesnt. Dawkins knows it doesnt. He says in his book they have to guess at it.
It always amuses me when people continue to repeat ridiculously false assertions because they can't be bothere to actually use their brain to learn something, as if repetition will make it true.
I'm not promoting ignorance on this board. I am pointing out that JW's have to be right no matter what.
Ironically, you are insisting that you are right about insisting things might not be right.
BTW, the earth is billions of years old. Insisting otherwise means that 1) you are incapable of understanding the science 2) you are too lazy to understand the science or 3) you have an agenda. I would add 4) you are simply ignorant of the science, but it has been presented to you here so I know that is not it.
But I do think I have some common sense. And I think much of what you tout is psuedo science.
Indeed, you may have common sense, but you are wrong about the age of the earth. It takes works and learning to understand the science, something you clearly have not done.
However, to indulge you, what, specifically, do you think is pseudo science when determining the age of the earth?
