the purpose of this thread is to share some history with the community.
i am an active jw.
the reason i picked this forum is due to the openness and ease with which information can be accessed.
"Gene Roddenberry the creator of the Star Trek series talked to these other worldly beings through spiritistic means and got some of his ideas that he would later use in Star Trek. They identified themselves as the council of nine or the Ennead of ancient Egypt" - (un-?)hs
What has to happen to someone in order for them to actually believe this silliness? Still, for entertainment value, these few posts of unHealthySkeptic have been interesting.
the purpose of this thread is to share some history with the community.
i am an active jw.
the reason i picked this forum is due to the openness and ease with which information can be accessed.
HS - It seems like you want to live in an echo chamber. If you don't want to be criticised then you will never learn when you are wrong or going down the wrong path. Perhaps you need to rethink your username?
"Don't believe everything you read. Do the research yourself. This also includes what I type. Look into it yourself"
How often is this phrase recited by those who do not follow their own advice? Maybe it is due to the conditioning that JWs receive to makes them think that their way of 'researching' reaches the truth of the matter...
.....the truth was not the truth... ?
.
The flood mainly and the language used in their articles and books.
first they said 20 dead with 100 injured.
now i just heard 50 dead and 200 injured.
whatever it is it just another nut case who was able to get a high power gun to kill people.
Guns don't kill people, rappers do...
fantastic graphic produced by the smithsonian institute illustrating human origins.
click on any of the group or species labels for more detailed information.. meet your ancestors here....
Fisherman -
Can you think of a way that these prints could have been made before these sedimentary layers were deposited?
Can you think of a way that these prints could have been left in solid rock?
No you can not.
Therefore these prints were made sometime after the sediments being deposited and before they were buried under subsequent layers.
Therefore if the deposition rate is such that this will occur within the margin of error for the particular dating method we can date the prints by testing the rocks.
You are wrong because we can date these prints within a margin of error by testing the rocks.
You are basically asking for nothing to be tested (i.e. the lack of rock that makes the footprint visible) and that is very similar to the creationist who demands the names of all transitional species from the beginnings of time to now before they will accept evolution.
fantastic graphic produced by the smithsonian institute illustrating human origins.
click on any of the group or species labels for more detailed information.. meet your ancestors here....
"Fact is that the dating does not date the prints directly but the unknown date of the prints depend on interpretation." - Fisherman
That is wrong. The date of the prints is known to an acceptable level of error, the same level of error that is given to all radiometrically dated strata.
As I said above, the prints were not made before these sediments were laid down, they were made afterwards (that much is obvious I hope). They also had to have been made before the surface where the prints are now recorded was buried so deep that no footprints could reach them (that also should be obvious). That gives you the relative time frame for these prints being made. The absolute time frame is given by radiometric dating methods. The relative time frame is less than the margin of error for this type of testing so therefore whatever time frame the date testing gives is accurate for the purpose of understanding these imprints.
This is simple extrapolation of available evidence. The only question of relevance for this particular find is whether they are what they appear to be i.e. human footprints.
fantastic graphic produced by the smithsonian institute illustrating human origins.
click on any of the group or species labels for more detailed information.. meet your ancestors here....
Fisherman -
The conclusions are based on facts; or to put it another way the facts make the conclusion.
I really don't understand what your problem is with this.
fantastic graphic produced by the smithsonian institute illustrating human origins.
click on any of the group or species labels for more detailed information.. meet your ancestors here....
Fisherman -
1 - You cannot leave footprints in rocks.
2 - You cannot leave footprints in soft ground before the soft ground is there.
3 - Layers have to be buried under subsequent layers in order to lithify.
Conclusion:
The foot prints you see (assuming they are human in origin) had to have been made shortly after (years to 10s of years) the deposition of the layer(s) they disturb.
What is your take on these prints and how does that fit with known geological processes?
As an aside, where you quoted me it can be proven that footprints cannot be preserved during a period of erosion; the reasons for this should be obvious...
fantastic graphic produced by the smithsonian institute illustrating human origins.
click on any of the group or species labels for more detailed information.. meet your ancestors here....
"The substrate can be tested but how can one know when the footprints were actually made." - Fisherman
The substrate would need to be soft enough to allow indents to be made, therefore lithification had not occurred at the point the prints were made.
The prints must have been made during a period of deposition because if erosion was occurring we could not still see them as they would have been eroded at the time of making. Therefore as more layers were placed on top, compaction would begin the lithification process.
After the lithified strata was eroded away revealing this particular layer, the now visible surface would be too hard to leave these impressions.
Therefore, if this layer is dated to between 5-7 Ma then that is when the prints were made.
to revolt is a natural tendency of life.
even a worm turns against the foot that crushes it.
the vitality and relative dignity of an animal can be measured by the intensity of its instinct to revolt.
Venus -
That sounds like something William Lane Craig would come up with...
Your initial premise is flawed therefore your conclusion is incorrect. A worm would react, not revolt. To revolt you first have to understand that something is happening for a reason and strive to work against that reason for reasons of your own. Are you suggesting a worm (or indeed life in general) has the capability to reason and exercises this ability in the course of its everyday life?
