Why did I ignore the inconsistencies? Because I was hooked on their emotional jollies. Like many people, I was emotionally vulnerable along with being 16 years old and somewhat naive. I think that like many others, I felt a displacement in my time and with the older generation. The JWs presented something different and a very accomodating support group to feed my emotional teenage state. To this day, I still miss the fellowship. I wouldn't take a million dollars in exchange for any of that experience. But, I would give a damn penny for any of it now.
Posts by Etude
-
28Have you ever wondered why as Jehovah's Witnesses you ignored the inconsistencies, lies and hypocricies of the Watchtower's Governing Body for so long?
by matt2414 inhere are a few examples of what i overlooked for so long:.
1. the watchtower often praised rutherford's 1918 talk "millions now living will never die.
" however, everyone who had ever heard that talk was dead.. 2. the governing body urges the placement of the watchtower's "bible" literature with strangers.
-
-
-
-
-
Etude
Miles3: "Etude, thing is you're talking about the fossilisation process, and 14 C dating isn't used in those cases." I would have agreed with you if I hadn't found out that wood (possibly other organic matter) can petrify rather quickly. One source I found in Wiki-answers says it can happen in a matter of days, given the right cocktail of minerals. Another says that it can happen in less than 10 years (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_does_it_take_petrification_to_occur). I have to say that I didn't pursue to find the basis for that conclusion. However, I can't find any refutation either. So, I don't really know why 14 C would necessarily be excluded from testing fossilized material.
"most fossils are remineralised with silica" -- What I've found is that there are several things that influence petrifaction: Silification, Pyritization (iron and sulfur) and Replacement ( calcite, silica, pyrite, and hematite). And since 14 C can also make up water in addition to the "soup" that would contaminate a specimen, it's not unreasonable to question the process (petrifaction) as one that might influence and contaminate the readings.
"For making the difference between a specimen that has been perminaralised and one that hasn't, try burning fossilised wood." The process of 14 C extraction involves high-temperature pyrolysis-combustion. Yes, you can "burn" some "rocks". The whole point of it is to extract carbon in the form of CO 2 and then take a reading of nuclear decay.
"... it doesn't work like that. Athmosphere is global" Absolutely not! Veerabhadran Ramanathan, (UCSD and Harvard), one of the world's leading climatologists, pointed to an interesting situation regarding the distribution of contaminants in the air. He (and some colleagues) noticed the difference between the seemingly "unpolluted" Maldives Islands (because they don't have sufficient sources of pollution) noticing that only the southern tip of one of their islands is actually pollution "free". Apparently, The Maldives sit in swath of polluted air currents coming from India. But the "unpolluted" tip that has "clean air" is enjoying a current from Antarctica. Bottom line is that there are distinct currents and divisions in the atmosphere which can isolate the presence of contaminats. That has been a long standing suspicion. The measurements by Ramanathan between the part ofThe Maldives that is polluted and the part that isn't revealed a difference in the amount of sunlight that actually reached the ground.
Bottom line is this:
- I absolutely believe in the testing method and procedure and in the science behind 14 C testing.
- I don't doubt that the venues and results from 14 C testing are accurate.
- I do believe that different materials require different ways of testing.
- I do believe that many results (perhaps a majority) of 14 C testing definitely reflect accurate dates in the 10ths of thousands of years.
Clear enough? But I also think that the accuracy in age of some (not all) of the items tested can be skewed by the very reasons I'm arguing. But that's not the fault of the science and more a problem associated with the specimen. I've tried to reply to some of the assumptions I feel people have made about testing. The very controversy between scientists about the issue (the testing of the Shroud of Turin being one example and the questions about dendrochronology being another) is for me enough cause to not swallow the testing of everything hook, line and sinker.
In the process, it's easy to lose the fact that while I believe in the testing, I have some doubts about some conclusions for the reasons I've stated. I also believe that there probably is a preponderance of items tested that result in accurate dating. But what I simply tried to establish is that 14 C testing can provide incorrect age conclusion as well (in spite of having a lot of success) and that the reasons that happens may be beyond our control due to our lack of some knowledge about the original environment of the object we're testing, even if that only happens once in a while. In the discussion, I was merely offering reasons why that's possible.
Lastly, I never meant to insinuate that Earth's previous warming was due to a "water canopy". I merely mention that such is one possibility, heavy concentrations of CO 2 being another, the flipping of the magnetic field being yet another. I don't think you want me to find "remnants" of a water canopy, 'cause that would be just plain crazy. I base my guess on the strata revelations that show so many parts of the earth were once (not all at once) under water and on ice-core records, which show multiple occurrences of heavier CO 2 deposits. I really want to stick a fork in this one. I'm done.
-
-
-
Etude
mP, you're making it way too complicated. You make it sound as if I said that once the Earth was warm and then it was cool. No. I realize that the cycle has happened many, many times. This is why it's even easier to conclude that multiply floods on different parts of the Earth at different times can upset and contaminate what was once buried. The ice-core data alone reveals multiple instances of carbon concentration in the atmosphere. It's almost the equivalent of dendrochronology, except maybe more precise. You also assumed that I'm only basing my observations on the increase of CO 2 . Just plain old water vapor in heavy concentrations may do the trick. The other thing I didn't mention is something that is in existence today but for which I have no proof existed in the past and that is high-atmospheric particles like the ones that are now causing global dimming. I simply suggested that CO 2 is one of the possible reasons for the weather changes. If anything, the charts you show make my point that the constant changing weather may be responsible of the upheaval the can introduce contamination into specimens.
-
8
Inconsistency: Tower of Babel vs. space program
by tootired2care inseveral years back i remember listening to a public talk.
the title of the talk escapes me; but one of the points (albeit wierd) that was brought out, is that the part of the mytholgy behind the symbol of apollo was defiance of god.
he made this jump by linking apollo with ishtar (nimrods wife) wife somehow...he used this point in connection with the nasa space program to make the point, that the space exploration was a defiant action against god, as a modern day like nimrod account.
-
-
Etude
I remember in 1969 when I was young and stupid and had just started to study with the dubs, I said to a friend in High school that God would not let man land on the moon because man had dared to venture into His realm. I'm not sure if I came up with that one myself or I had heard it from some of my equally stupid JW teachers. What a maroon!
-
62
Could UFO Disclosure Bring About A Golden Age?
by metatron inthere are a great many people - and internet sites- that preach a sort of 2012/ufo gospel.
while they may contradict one another, they mostly teach that ufo's will intervene and save us, especially if governments admit that they exist.. yeah, ok..... been there, heard that..... but could there be a core of truth to this idea?.
what would happen if the world acknowledged that et's exist?.
-
-
Etude
OUTLAW, you crack me up with your pictures!
-
207
On becoming atheist - the tug of war
by Nickolas inperhaps, if you are a theist, you might not want to read this.
if you are nevertheless curious about how an atheist thinks, then please read on.. i don't think there are any active members of this board who have been atheists all their lives (are there?).
i think virtually all of us transitioned into non-belief from a religious beginning.
-
-
Etude
I would have to disagree with you on whether Einstein would agree. Einstein was an agnostic bordering on atheist. When he said something about a great intelligence seen in the universe, he was not referring to an entity but to the inherent logic of math and physics. The Watchtower loves to use that quote as a basis for showing that "even Einstein" believed in God, when in fact he didn't. Still I can sympathize and am even a bit envious about your choice to be a deist. It's such a comforting thing to have and to expect that in the end we will go one. It's a wonderful delusion.
I came late to this discussion. But throughout, I've seen a lot of interesting suggestions about what we are and how we become one thing or another. That only reaffirmed my long standing idea that when born we are a blank slate. We learn to be deists or a kind person or a genius or a psychopathic killer. That does not exclude the fact that we have genetic predispositions that make us more suitable for one thing or another. But, our environment is at least 50% of the equation.
After decades of being very close to classical music (the piano) and seeing other children exposed to it, I came to the conclusion that Mozart or Schubert or Chopin were not genetically prescribed to be what they became. They weren't born being who they became. They were made and chiseled by their environment. Of course their environment would have amounted to nothing if they didn't have some ability to begin with. But I think that most humans have that potential at the start. If Michelangelo had been born in the jungles of the Amazon there would have been no Michelangelo. He needed a medium and the environment to become what he was.
Therefore, I think about the differences between not being taught deism and not being taught evolution. They put out quite different results. But in both cases, the individual may exhibit a desire for either one. It is in the nature of being human to think about such things. Indeed, besides the intellect to ask, we have a innate sense of the spiritual in our brains. That's why you won't find a society now or ever that hasn't had some sort of deistic ritual or belief.
Ultimately, I think it is those individual differences, both genetic and environmental, that makes someone like me to prefer being resigned to the idea that we are finite and will disappear forever, rather than have some unfounded hope that somehow we will have the chance to live on pending on what a being we never associate with does. Besides, I think there's still hope that somewhere in the distant future, science may find a way of "retrieving" people out of some universal time-line and have them come back to continue with their lives, hopefully in a better situation. Hey, that's like -- Resurrection!
-
36
If Serena wins gold, will she stand for the US Anthem?
by Open mind inthey're playing right now and serena is ahead 6-0, 5-1.. .
thoughts?.
om.
-
-
Etude
Holy crap, I hadn't conceived how they would act, carrying the flag around and wearing it on their clothing. Haven't they been in this situation before? I recall one of them saying how proud she was to represent her "country", meaning the U.S. Maybe they're using it ("country") in a popular way rather than a political or governmental way. OK, that's one way to quibble. Too bad the people in Malawi didn't have that benefit back in the 70s. I presume they'll stand on the podium for the gold if they win but may not put a hand over the heart. If they do, then they'll just have to run back to the congo and ask forgiveness from the elders.
-
62
Could UFO Disclosure Bring About A Golden Age?
by metatron inthere are a great many people - and internet sites- that preach a sort of 2012/ufo gospel.
while they may contradict one another, they mostly teach that ufo's will intervene and save us, especially if governments admit that they exist.. yeah, ok..... been there, heard that..... but could there be a core of truth to this idea?.
what would happen if the world acknowledged that et's exist?.
-
-
Etude
No!
-
23
Nice 1975 quote from F Franz, in 1975
by Splash in*** w75 5/1 p. 285 a contrastmissionaries with an urgent, lifesaving work ***.
another speaker, f. w. franz, the societys vice-president, forcefully impressed on the audience the urgency of the christian preaching work.. he stressed that, according to dependable bible chronology, 6,000 years of human history will end this coming september according to the lunar calendar.
this coincides with a time when the human species [is] about to starve itself to death, as well as its being faced with poisoning by pollution and destruction by nuclear weapons.. franz added: theres no basis for believing that mankind, faced with what it now faces, can exist for the seventh thousand-year period under the present system of things.
-
-
Etude
Wow, it just dawned on me that I heard him make that same speech at the Gilead class graduation in 1974 at the Sunny Side Assembly Hall in Queens, NY. When I hear other people say the Witnesses did not say Armageddon was coming soon, that speech always comes to mind. The place was packed. As a "new boy", I didn't have a seat and had to stand in the back of the auditorium. I felt so privileged then -- and dumb.
Etude.
-
-
-
Etude
kepler: By all means, we need to present every possible point of view in the discussion. I view these opportunities not as debates but as informative conversations. I have learned a lot here. But what I try to do is present alternatives or challenges and not necessarily an opposite conclusion to an argument. For me, it's more important to question everything (with the proper reasoning) than to present an opposing position for the sake of argument without first establishing its credentials.
Considering the inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible, the work remains dubious for me as a legitimate source of chronology and events. Ad to that the fact that I intensely dislike "History" (it was by far the worse subject I took in High school -- sorry Leolaia), I'm not inclined to know or pursue much about it. However, I see the necessity to learn when history and chronology are an essential part of some other issue. For me, when there is sufficient independent evidence that an event stated in the Bible corroborates, then I start paying more attention and respect to that specific account. Still, I'm reluctant to make the same assumptions about other parts just because a few have turned out right.
I think your suggestion of presenting the Biblical case contrasted by pro or con evidence can support some biblical ideas. And, it's a legitimate presentation and an acceptable tool of debate to assume the veracity of a biblical account in order to argue against it with contrasting evidence. But I feel that is not an efficient way to go. That's why I'm so much more encouraged by the recent archeological findings that are bringing to light the fabrication of the Hebrews and of Israel. The reason why that's important to me is that it is critical in resolving other issues, like the ideological and religious divisions we face today.
Etude.