My sarcasm didnt come thru strong enough I see LOL... Must try harder!
If man evolved?
by tornapart 427 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
LisaRose
Yes Caedes, I meant to say that, these discussions are very helpful for those of us who aren't as familiar with the subject. I started to respond to some of this yesterday, but I don't know nearly as much as you and Cofty and others and I figured someone else could state it far better than I could, and so you did.
-
James Brown
I am an agnostic. I dont know.
I would like to believe in God but there are a lot of problems with the bible.
There are good things in the bible also.
Maybe there is something like reincarnation going on or something with multiple
universes we dont understand.
I do not think anyone has show enough evidence about the reliability of the dating methods
in arriving at a old earth. And I do believe if anyone knows how it is done and can explain
it in simple terms the circular reasoning will be evident.
I think something happened at the time of the biblical flood very catostrphic and that event is bluring
many interpretations of data. Science changes just like the watchtower. The only thing is most of
us wont be here when it announces the changes in this area. And even when it does announce the changes
it just leads to confusion.
I will say if there is no God then macro evolution would be one of the only games in town.
And atheist have been working long and hard at disproving God. But the bible has worn out
many anvils and hammers.
Anyway's don't let me bother you. If there is no God and we all evolved, you got nothing to
worry about from me.
As far as Kent Hovind being a convicted fraudster. As far as I can tell he was convicted for not paying
his taxes which is a crime many business people in America are guilty of.
The guy who was running for president Mit Romney was an expert at evading paying taxes.
He hasnt done any jail time because he is more adapt andskill full at not paying taxes than Hovind.
-
cantleave
I do not think anyone has show enough evidence about the reliability of the dating methods in arriving at a old earth. And I do believe if anyone knows how it is done and can explain it in simple terms the circular reasoning will be evident.
The dating methods are entirely reliable. Just because you haven't tried to understand this methodology doesn't mean it is unreliable. Cofty has expalined it extremely well in his post and the paper he linked to is excellent.
I can not see where this unreliability you keep referring to exists. Please in YOUR OWN words explain it to me.
-
jgnat
Well, if we have a living tree that is older than the purported world-wide flood, I believe the tree.
Here's one for the age of the universe, not circular thinking either. The speed of light is a constant. By triangulation we can estimate how far an object is from us, even stars. One light-year is the distance it takes for light to travel in one year. If we are receiving light from a star that is a hundred million light-years away from us, it existed at least a hundred million years ago.
-
talesin
It's not the copy and pasting Satanus. It's just God, man, evolution, creation, atheism it's an argument
that cant be won. And I keep letting myself get sucked into it.
True dat! I don't either.
It's good to have discussions, though. Never forget that it gives other readers and lurkers the opportunity to read those arguments that they CAN'T have. They have no one to do that with! It gives them insights to both sides of the coin, and if ONE discussion (lol, or argument) causes ONE person who is on the fence to take a closer look at the WT and their teachings, then it's all worth it!
This has been a much more balanced thread than some I've seen (less fighting and more real debate) .... well done on both sides.
just my 2
xo
tal
-
jgnat
I'll paraphrase on behalf of James Brown. Hovind's claim of circular reasoning relates to rock strata and fossils dating each other. That is, a geologist dates rock strata to be so many millions of years old. A paelontologist finds a fossil in a particular rock strata, looks it up on a chart, and similarly dates the fossil to be so many millions of years old. The geologist finds the same fossil in an unknown strata, looks up the paleo chart, and dates the strata. If this were the only way that the scientists dated strata and fossils, the logic would be circular and subject to flaws.
Challenging this, caedes and cofty have both mentioned that geologists and paleontologists don't rely on a single method of dating. They use multiple methods including radiometric dating, to reconfirm the results and challenge assumptions. I've mentioned core sampling and dendochronology. Though they don't go back as far, they also reconfirm these other results.
-
TD
I do not think anyone has show enough evidence about the reliability of the dating methods
in arriving at a old earth. And I do believe if anyone knows how it is done and can explain
it in simple terms the circular reasoning will be evident.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding entirely and just need a second cup of coffee this morning. I'm not sure the term, 'circular reasoning' is being used fairly.
Circular reasoning occurs when elements of your starting premise(s) are incorporated into your conclusion. For example:
The world wide preaching work during the time of the end proves Jehovah's Witnesses are God's people
And
The world wide preaching work by God's people proves we're living in the time of the end
...are circular when taken together.
That's not the same thing as linear correlation. For example, volcanic eruptions can be dated in several completely independent ways. Ash from the eruption has a unique chemical fingerprint and can be found in ice cores. The growth of trees that survive the eruption is affected and this is visible in the tree ring patterns. Large eruptions affect growth all over the world. (i.e. Volcanic winter) Minerals crystallized after the eruption can be radioisotope dated.
The volcano Thera, in the eastern Mediterranean erupted in about the middle of the 15th century B.C. and this is dated in six different ways: archaeological, radioisotope, tree ring, bog deposit, river deposit and ice cores. It's not circular simply to compare the different dating methods. The dating methods are not being used to date each other.
-
cofty
if anyone knows how it is done and can explain it in simple terms the circular reasoning will be evident
I do know how its done and did explain it to you in my own words in very simple terms. Did you read it carefully? I doubt it.
I linked an excellent article written by a christian who is also a scientist. It was written specifically to help people like yourself find answers to their objections to radiometric dating. I am certain you didn't bother to read it.
We are all still waiting for you to explain your objection in your own words.
James, you remind me of a JW who has just been shown compelling evidence against the borg. Sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "CIRCULAR" is intellectually dishonest.
-
James Brown
Please in YOUR OWN words explain it to me.
Very simple man can not date rocks.
If they know the age of the rocks they are incredibley off in their estimation.
The only rocks they can date are the ones they don't know the age of.
The ones nobody can check them on.
