i am looking for the book the sociey gives to help witnesses with custody cases.
found one link, but could not get it to download.
thank you so very much.
You might wish to personally contact Duane Magnani. He is a specialist and consultant on WT custody issues for families, and has also written a book on the subject. http://www.witnessinc.com
Here is the book: (http://www.witnessinc.com/ordering_materials.html see #988)
.
using overlapping tree ring patterns from dead and still living bristlecone pines shows a 100% provable climate for california for over 10,000 years thus proving the the great flood did not happen as far back as 10,000 years ago.. www.americanforests.org/productsandpubs/ magazine/archives/2004winter/feature1_1.php - 19k.
www.unmuseum.org/radiocar.htm - 8k
Please keep in mind what Hoob presents is considered pseuoscience that has not been properly peer reviewed.
What makes what I presented "pseudoscience" and what is your criteria of being "properly peer reviewed"?
when i was a bible believer, i accepted the flood.
the frozen mammoths and seashells on mountaintops were "evidence", but the only needed proof was simply that the bible said so.
as a christian, do you believe the flood story?.
and who went to all the trouble of scrubbing the water marks from that nasty global deluge off of the great pyramids?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/pyramids.asp
when i was a bible believer, i accepted the flood.
the frozen mammoths and seashells on mountaintops were "evidence", but the only needed proof was simply that the bible said so.
as a christian, do you believe the flood story?.
The first Jesuit missionary priests to China (circa 1650) were just about laughed out of town because of their "bible" chronology - the Chinese had historical records showing their great civilization going way back before the accepted date for the flood.For example, their first emperor, Fu Hsi, was recorded to have begun his rule in 2952 B.C. which is about 600 years before the Hebrew date for the flood.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=600
.
using overlapping tree ring patterns from dead and still living bristlecone pines shows a 100% provable climate for california for over 10,000 years thus proving the the great flood did not happen as far back as 10,000 years ago.. www.americanforests.org/productsandpubs/ magazine/archives/2004winter/feature1_1.php - 19k.
www.unmuseum.org/radiocar.htm - 8k
Here are some creationist resources that may be helpful:
"Collapsing the Long Bristlecone Pine Tree Ring Chronologies, J. Woodmorappe"
available from http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/icc03.htm
"Radiocarbon, Dendrochronology and the Date of the Flood -Aardsma."
available from http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/icc90.html
this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.
we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.
i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.
And most of the references you quote (like http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp) are sufficently incompetent to use the assumed FACT of the Flood being real as an explanation for how somethings are, when of course the Flood is not proven.
In response to the above previously I wrote: "Firstly, one of your previous false accusations of "incompetence" against creationists regarding that specific arctcile was already documented here: (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/1810307/post.ashx#1810307)."
I was unable to edit- it should instead be be:
Firstly, one of your previous false accusations of "incompetence" against creationists regarding a similar AIG arcticle discussing carbon dating (which also referenced the more detailed carbon dating arcticle) was already documented here:(http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/1810307/post.ashx#1810307).
when i was a bible believer, i accepted the flood.
the frozen mammoths and seashells on mountaintops were "evidence", but the only needed proof was simply that the bible said so.
as a christian, do you believe the flood story?.
Well, for the global diehards, I still have a few simple questions that I cannot personally get past -What happened to all that water? It cannot just evaporate into space---its got to be still here in some form or another.
What happened to all the PLANTS? Most of them will not survive being inundated. Even if Noah saved plant samples as well as animals, how did the other CONTINENTS get repopulated with their unique species. And don't tell me continental drift had them all as one landmass. That is cheating if you think this happened within the past 6000 years.
Also, did you ever consider how HARD it would have to rain to accomplish this? 10" of rain in an hour is a pretty good downpour...what does that add up to over 40 days?
this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.
we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.
i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.
I said: All people argue about is creation- why not the destructive process of extinction? If you believe that the creation of life and the evolving process are directed by a Creator, then is not G-d also responsible for the the natural events that have caused 95% of all prior living creatures to go extinct? You can't have one without the other.I am still waiting for an intelligent design advocate to explain, if G-d is responsible for the extinction events which opened the way for new species to populate the Earth.
this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.
we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.
i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.
Let's see what other games you are playing.
In http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/6.ashx you claim;The claim that the radioactive decay of other isotopes (such as unranium) in rocks could produce the quantities of 14C observed has been discussed by the afore mentioned Los Alamos scientist (now with ICR) as being thousands of times to low at current rates to account for the data.I'd read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html if I were you.
I had read the Talk Origins arcticle. Its primary "explanation" that: "the 14 C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks . . . " was in fact what your above quoted comments of mine were responding to. (for more details see http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/1810319/edit.ashx).
You state "I believe [the paper was] also reviewed by other scientists for publication at an ICC conference well.".
Having a creationist paper reviewed by creationists is like having a nazi revisonist history of the Holocaust reviewed by nazi revisonists. It means nothing.
Your charges against creationist peer review were responded to here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/104540/1.ashx
Moving on:
I could go on about how, once again, despite clear proof there were flourishing civilisations (and trees) at the Biblically specified period for the Flood which were unaffeceted by it and which left builidings hundreds of years older than the date of the Flood standing (as well as trees), you pretend the Flood is even possible.
A paper responding to you dendrochronology (bristlecone tree) claims can be found earlier in the above (linked to) thread.
And most of the references you quote (like http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp) are sufficently incompetent to use the assumed FACT of the Flood being real as an explanation for how somethings are, when of course the Flood is not proven.
Firstly, one of your previous false accusations of "incompetence" against creationists regarding that specific arctcile was already documented here: (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/1810307/post.ashx#1810307).
As to the accusation that the arctcile is "incompetent" because it uses the "assumed FACT of the Flood being real as an explanation for how somethings are, when of course the flood is not proven" it should also be noted that that geological uniformitarianism (an assumption of secular carbon dating) is "not proven" either, yet evolutionists still use it.
Finally, I hope to discontinue all further discussions with you regarding your accusations against myself and the sources I use as several more than sufficient responses have been given and I see no need to take any more time.
this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.
we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.
i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.
As you do me when I use talkorigins. Thing is, you misrepresent the situation.In the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/1.ashx which basically has only been responded to by Creationists in the past two months, in your post http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/1810325/post.ashx#1810325 you say "see especially the third" when refering to some links. Okay then. If we look at that http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566935/post.ashx#1566935, it is a post of yours I HAVE ALREADY RESPONDED TO OVER HALF A YEAR AGO.
Your response to the specific talk origins errors was to attempt to attribute them to the difficulty inherit in making any "abiogenesisitic probability" calculation - when in fact his errors involve mathematics (e.g. making the entire earth a sphere of water), and omitting well known real world chemical obstacles to protein formation (e.g. chirality, polymerization, etc.), as well as starting off by giving the impression that creationists only criticize "instant" bacteria abiogenesis, and not abiognesis in stages (as they do as well).
