by Sea Breeze 67 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
You are allowing yourself to be controlled by your belief system as you were when you were a jw .
@ TouchofGrey
The evidence led me far from a Watchtower view. I guess I should remind you that we all believed in millions of years as JW's. We certainly didn't believe in a literal 6 earth-day creation.
As far as I remember as a jw ,each creative day was a 1000 year, so 6000 years took us to 1975.
And then because of advances in understanding the age of the earth etc it was changed to each day being a undisclosed period of time.
The bible is not a scientific book, it's a book of fiction and mythology. So why anyone would believe that it is to be taken literally in the 21st century is beyond sensibility and to ignore and dismiss the overwhelming evidence for the age of the earth etc.
Jethro said:
I should remind you that we all believed in millions of years as JW's. We certainly didn't believe in a literal 6 earth-day creation.
Amazing. So the Himalayas only appear to be caused by the India Plate colliding into the Eurasian Plate over millions of years. In reality they were created 'as is' 6000 years ago. Reason being: because.
it was changed to each day being a undisclosed period of time.
Yes, that is how I remember it when I left in '95. Everyone I knew interpreted that to mean MOY's.
Wasn't there a time when they claimed Earth was around 42,000 years old? Based on a six-day creation made up of 7,000-year "days," or something equally nutty.
Granted, it's based on the same literalist thinking that gives us a 6,000 year old planet, so you could come up with a range of values. They're all wrong, which is what you get when your unit of measure is "whatever these ancient people pulled out of their asses." But, as with so many other beliefs, the WTS found ways to differentiate themselves for no other apparent reason than wanting to be different.
Granted, it's based on the same literalist thinking that gives us a 6,000 year old planet
No, it is not based on literalist thinking. The 7000 years creative "day" is just as symbolic as a "time period of an undetermined length".
Regardless, deep age is falling apart for secularists from a number of different points of view across many different scientific disciplines. Deep time is contradicted by the new James Webb Space Telescope.
They were supposed to find an early universe with lots of Generation III star formation along with little to no galaxy formation.
They found the opposite - fully formed spiral galaxy formation as big as the Milky Way from the dawn of time :
"This was astounding — we're finding galaxy candidates as massive as our own galaxy when the universe was 3% of its current age."...
"It turns out we found something so unexpected it actually creates problems for science. It calls the whole picture of early galaxy formation into question."
It calls a lot more than early galaxy formation into question. If the sun, moon and stars were all created in one day, this evidence is predictable and exactly what a creationist would expect to find.
For secularists, the list of things that don't fit keeps growing:
Neither Dinosaur Soft Tissue, human footprints in Carboniferous sandstone, nor star/galaxy formation seem to be affected by the passage of deep time and directly contradict a secularist world-view.
Exactly how much evidence does it take to convince a secularist that his worldview doesn't fit the facts? Is there any amount? Is it all bananas?
“It’s bananas,” said Erica Nelson, an assistant professor of astrophysics at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and a co-author of the paper, in a statement that accompanied its release. “You just don’t expect the early universe to be able to organize itself that quickly. These galaxies should not have had time to form.”
Again, I will point out that the people who actually research and learn about this stuff are not coming around to a view that contradicts decades (centuries, even) of learning and discovery. It is not surprising that the only people who are claiming that there is any support for a young cosmos are the same people who always did so regardless of what is found, and the same people whose own charters require them to reject actual science for what their ancient texts might say.
There is a reason that these claims are not put to the test through the process of peer review. There is a reason most of these claims are made by people who are not experts in the sciences in question. Or why the handful of people who are experts also avoid peer review when they go off course. Their claims are so wrong that the relevant sciences largely ignore them anymore, which they take advantage of by pretending it's evidence that they're on the right track. It's conspiracy-theory quackery at it's most deranged.
experts also avoid peer review
TonusOH,
Wow! You make one false claim after another in your last post. Almost everything on this thread has been peer-reviewed.
For example, Dr. John Sanford retired as a long-time Professor at Cornell University ? This guy's work is SOLID. Dr. Sanford is a former atheist. Since the mid-1980s, Sanford has looked into theistic evolution (1985–late 1990s), Old Earth creationism (late 1990s), and Young Earth creationism (2000–present). According to him, he did not fully reject Darwinian evolution until the year 2000. Dr. Sanford and his wife Helen have three children.
On behalf of intelligent design, Dr. Sanford was involved in the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings. He denied the principle of common descent and testified ..."that we were created by a special creation, by God."
As an inventor, Dr. Sanford holds more than 25 patents including the biolistic process known as the "gene gun" featured at the Smithsonian Museum. It doesn't get more reputable than this guy. Yet here he is addressing the prestigious National Institutes of Health explaining his peer-reviewed paper on how (time mark 19 minutes or so through 23:17) it would take longer than the supposed existence of the universe to produce just one 8 letter genetic word from natural selection ( and that is with very liberal and favorable parameters)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38XSkLqZ2gs&ab_channel=EvidenceandReasons
So, we can add the field of genetics to the list of "problem science" for the "deep timers" to the other fields already discussed: dinosaur soft tissue, human footprints in Carboniferous Sandstone, early galaxy formation in the beginning of time that is identical to galaxies like ours now.
The fact of the matter is that "deep time" has been destroyed by multiple sciences from top scientists who did not start off as creationists, but ended up one because that is where the evidence led.
Secularists seem to just hide their heads in the sand, engage in hand-waving and say ignorant things like you said above to improve the optics of their credulity. This is to be expected during a paradigm shift, which is what we are experiencing.
The evidence for creation is overwhelming.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_time
Deep time spans billions of years not just 6000 years .
Sea Breeze: Almost everything on this thread has been peer-reviewed.
No, it hasn't. Having claims published in YEC journals is not peer-review. Only a very few YEC scientists have an education in the relevant field, and their peer-reviewed work does not challenge theories about the age of the universe or related fields of physics. The few peer-reviewed papers they do publish follow conventional science, and only the crap they "publish" in YEC journals makes claims contrary to what has been discovered and researched by their peers.
This is the bait-and-switch that YEC sites perform all the time. Point at one of their own who has a relevant education, point out that he has been published in the relevant journals... and then have them present unscientific nonsense that they wouldn't dream of submitting for peer review. I challenge you to find actual, legitimate peer-reviewed articles from any of them which challenge established science about the origins and age of the universe.
