i know i rarely if ever read the magazines that i used to promote and place with householders (besides the watchtower study).
hypocritical no?.
I can even tell you when I gave up reading the mags.
A few months after coming out of Bethel and I read this:
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102000486?q=cows&p=par
I was in bed reading it and I actually said out loud "What the f8ck!". Such an obvious piece of space filler. A complete and udder waste of time.
It won’t be long, however, before it is time for another vacation in the mountains! What a life!
I then got a life and never bothered to read them regularly again.
i've been using the search function on the site to research this, but a lot of articles seem quite old and there have been some interesting developments in this field of late.. if you're not sure on what carbon dating is have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radiocarbon_dating.
there's an interesting point made in the calibration methods section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radiocarbon_dating#calibration_methods.
on developments in the last few years.. they highlight the discovery at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lake_suigetsu and how it increased the calibration from 12,593 to 52,800 years.
Thanks again jgnat.
For me 50,000 years means that any JW is going to struggle with disproving the results for pre-Adam man made objects and the complete lack of evidence for the flood.
Once when I had this conversation the JW steered it to say, well 10,000 years is very close to when Adam was created so we just don't know.
But 50,000 years is irrefutable. I honestly believe this could open some peoples eyes. Hence me looking for any articles where a scientist has re-looked at the Flood subject with the newly calibrated measurements.
i've been using the search function on the site to research this, but a lot of articles seem quite old and there have been some interesting developments in this field of late.. if you're not sure on what carbon dating is have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radiocarbon_dating.
there's an interesting point made in the calibration methods section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radiocarbon_dating#calibration_methods.
on developments in the last few years.. they highlight the discovery at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lake_suigetsu and how it increased the calibration from 12,593 to 52,800 years.
Thanks jgnat.
I just wondered if any scientists had looked into this using the new calibrated data. It's simply irrefutable proof and I think it could be lethal for many Witnesses faith.
Thanks for the link though - interesting!
i've been using the search function on the site to research this, but a lot of articles seem quite old and there have been some interesting developments in this field of late.. if you're not sure on what carbon dating is have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radiocarbon_dating.
there's an interesting point made in the calibration methods section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radiocarbon_dating#calibration_methods.
on developments in the last few years.. they highlight the discovery at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lake_suigetsu and how it increased the calibration from 12,593 to 52,800 years.
Posted by accident to wrong poster
i've been using the search function on the site to research this, but a lot of articles seem quite old and there have been some interesting developments in this field of late.. if you're not sure on what carbon dating is have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radiocarbon_dating.
there's an interesting point made in the calibration methods section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radiocarbon_dating#calibration_methods.
on developments in the last few years.. they highlight the discovery at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lake_suigetsu and how it increased the calibration from 12,593 to 52,800 years.
Jame Brown - you said:
Wizzstick. I don't get it why are you showing me an article that shows radiocarbon dating something 4,500 years old? Am I supposed to be impressed that they didn't date the site 4.5 billion years old.
The whole point of this thread was about the flood of Noah's day, and how the discoveries at Lake Suigetsu study have provided 'a truly terrestrial record (which) gives us better resolution and confidence in radiocarbon dating'. Radiocarbon dating is accurate up to 50,000 years, which has clear implications for dating the flood. I don't give a crap about the age of the earth. Not sure why you've been posting on a subject you can't understand.
This gives proof to my saying that they use the stones to date the stones which is circular reasoning.
They are not using the stones to date the stones. They're using the the rate of decay of carbon-14 in the stones. I really don't think you have a clue on this subject.
I'm not going to be a sheeple like all you here who don't know what they are talking about and act like they do. I left that back in the 80's.
Since leaving the Witnesses you seem to have trust issues with anyone or anything that claims to be authoritive on a subject. That's up to you. But saying, as in effect you do, "You say it's black? Well I say it's white" doesn't mean you can see more clearly than the rest of us, or that we're just sheeple and you're cleverer than that.
It's simply being arrogant and wanting to be ignorant.
i've been using the search function on the site to research this, but a lot of articles seem quite old and there have been some interesting developments in this field of late.. if you're not sure on what carbon dating is have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radiocarbon_dating.
there's an interesting point made in the calibration methods section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radiocarbon_dating#calibration_methods.
on developments in the last few years.. they highlight the discovery at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lake_suigetsu and how it increased the calibration from 12,593 to 52,800 years.
You've still not read the article on Lake Suigetsu. Here's a key quote:
These varves allow a chronology to be established, because of the leaf fragments embedded in them, which have been used to calibrate the Carbon-14 time scale beyond the range of the absolute tree-ring calibration.
They have THOUSANDS of years of lake sediment to calibrate RC dating. TENS OF THOUSANDS of years. Look at when the results were published - 2012! Not 1992!!
As I said, science moves on. You need to keep up if you have credible points to make
i've been using the search function on the site to research this, but a lot of articles seem quite old and there have been some interesting developments in this field of late.. if you're not sure on what carbon dating is have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radiocarbon_dating.
there's an interesting point made in the calibration methods section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radiocarbon_dating#calibration_methods.
on developments in the last few years.. they highlight the discovery at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lake_suigetsu and how it increased the calibration from 12,593 to 52,800 years.
James - why are you quoting an 20 year article? Did you read the links I gave? Do so, the Lake Suigetsu study has provided 'a truly terrestrial record (which) gives us better resolution and confidence in radiocarbon dating. It also allows us to look at the differences between the atmosphere and oceans and study the implications for our understanding of the marine environment as part of the global carbon cycle.'
Radiocarbon dating has moved on. You need to as well.
Look at this. It pre-dates the Flood and Adam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnenez#Dates
Thanks Cofty for the links. Appreciate those.
i've been using the search function on the site to research this, but a lot of articles seem quite old and there have been some interesting developments in this field of late.. if you're not sure on what carbon dating is have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radiocarbon_dating.
there's an interesting point made in the calibration methods section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radiocarbon_dating#calibration_methods.
on developments in the last few years.. they highlight the discovery at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lake_suigetsu and how it increased the calibration from 12,593 to 52,800 years.
I've been using the search function on the site to research this, but a lot of articles seem quite old and there have been some interesting developments in this field of late.
If you're not sure on what Carbon dating is have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
There's an interesting point made in the Calibration Methods section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Calibration_methods
on developments in the last few years.
They highlight the discovery at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Suigetsu and how it increased the calibration from 12,593 to 52,800 years. Which is a gamechanger because it could totally confirm whether a global flood has ever happened to the Earth and do so way beyond when the Bible indicates it happened.
But what I can't see if anyone has actually used these latest developments to see whether there is any evidence for the Flood. Now the gist of various online articles is no it doesn't, but they tend to be from atheist sites etc. and from some time back.
I had a good conversation with an old JW friend, and I think the above has opened his eyes but I need to back it up. Atheist sites wont help and I really need recent articles, or graphs.
Can anyone recommend good scientific sites that have seriously looked at radio carbon dating a global flood from the recent developments outlined above? Something like this on carbon dating and the flood would be great: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-dating-gets-reset
we all know, any avid student of scripture in our time, can easily learn from their personal study of the holy writings, that jesus christ was clearly given the inestimable privilege to "sit upon god's throne," yes, being enthroned in the first century, and upon his resurrection where he was magnificently proclaimed a permanent "son of god," on an everlasting basis.
(see romans 1:4; revelation 3:12.
) this is an indisputable fact.
Hmmm.
I've just looked at one of this guy's earliest postings: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/39618/1/The-Great-War-Daniel-10-1-NIV
I'm going to apply an old discussion forum rule; the longer the paragraphs, the nuttier the poster. Or in JWN terms, the Larsinger Rule.
i'm in a major uk city, and we're assigned to an out of city location for our district convention.. to set the scene this site is off a busy motorway (freeway).
it's a football (soccer) stadium.
there is nothing around aside from one petrol (gas) station which also has a tiny supermarket in it.
Good call, but no. I've heard about that. The new stadium isn't exactly as popular with the brothers as the old venue in the Convention Centre!
The stadium is the same situation parking wise isn't it?
