Unassailable Truth about Creation

by Slidin Fast 24 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Finkelstein

  There is a surmountable of clearly accepted evidence that the ancients fabricated stories toward their gods as to bring

  and create relevance and importance to these gods, inadvertently thereby creating subjective relevance toward themselves.

  Human ignorance of the world in which they lived in was the real core factor into creating these gods,

  including Yahweh (YHWH) of the ancient Hebrews.

  .

  Being that so, is it any wonder power religious institutions like the JWS never accept or acknowledge

  this past element of human ignorance.
• 

  wallsofjericho

  well if you beleive carbon dating then you probably also think the big bang actually happened too... sheeeesh!! EVERYBODY knows carbon dating is so stupid!
• 

  Finkelstein

  Critical observation dictates that, what if those foot prints were placed just 1 thousand years ago

  in mud that was 800 thousand years old ?
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  I believe technically the mud would be 3.5 billion years old, regardless of when it was stepped on.
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  This is properly substantiated fact not open to dismissal.

  Nah.............they'll discount it by saying carbon dating is inaccurate.

  OR, like Finkelstein says above.

  Doc
• 

  Slidin Fast

  Hmmm Finkelstein, the mud layer was exposed after the cliffs behind it were eroded leaving the surface exposed. There is a million years of sediment in those deposits.

  Shirley, the constituent parts of the mud are stardust i suppose but that mud was layed as established.

  Desirousof Change, No, carbon dating does not come into it. It is not a technique for samples of this age.
• 

  wallsofjericho

  carbon dating or not, scientists think they're sooooo smart... EVERYBODY knows that man's wisdom is foolishness to Jehovah

  science is soooo stupid! They don't know anything useful!

  Jehovah made my wifi cellphone AND the internet!
• 

  Earnest

  The dating seems quite impressive but presumably the footprints could have been made by any biped. Is there any reason to think they were made by homo sapiens rather than homo neanderthalensis?
• 

  Slidin Fast

  They were hominids; it was I believe too early for homo sapiens, they were either Homo heidelbergensis or homo neaderthalensis. I am not sure which. Both were predecessors to modern man and confound the Genesis account.

  The problem is that when you set yourself up as having all the answers it becomes impossible to react to developments intelligently. In Russell's day opposing evolution was a reasonable stance, simply the conservative view dismissing all these new fangled godless ideas. As the evidence piled up the WT dug in deeper and deeper and it became out of the question to make a u turn. They have to defend a more and more intractable position because of their inflexible refusal to accept the inevitable.

  There was a time when it was thought that the more rigid and unbending a structure was, the more solid it would remain. Then came the earthquakes………………..
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  I agree with you but religious people, not just the watchtower continue to play dum and reject the clear evidence.

  Same here, but true believers in the young earth (or old earth with a young population) will say that the dating system for any evidence is off, and that a bunch of Christian-hating scientists with an agenda are interpreting the data about some bones, some prints, some flints, some occasional odd humans with deformed features, YADDA YADDA YADDA.

  Hope is alive, though. Even those that claim Christianity as their faith are not true followers of the "original sin" in the Garden of Eden. They know that science has proved well enough that man is pretty old and evolved into what He is today.