James Brown

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 1,401 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by James Brown

• 
  25

  How to act crazy enough not to have to go in FS or to meetings but not crazy enough to get committed to a mental health facility

  by hoser in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was thinking if i acted a little off but not too far off the elders would tell me i'm not welcome in the door to door work.

  i wonder if this would work.

  there is a watchtower or awake article somewhere saying that a mentally ill person may be excused from the meetings and field service if his illness affected others.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  James Brown

  If you don't want to go in service, don't go in service.

  They don't disfellowship you for that.

  If you don't want to go to meetings don't go to meetings.
• 
  91

  Carbon dating and the Global Flood - links needed

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  James Brown

  James Brown, I'm more of a reader than a poster on here but your posts have frustrated me so much I couldn't help myself. I'm not frustrated because I think you are wrong (I think lots of people on here are wrong) although I do happen to think you are wrong. It's more the fact that you continually use arguments against radiometric dating that have been so thoroughly and utterly debunked. Repeating arguments that demonstrate your ignorance of the subject and making no attempt to understand the criticisms and refutations of the arguments you use makes you intellectually lazy at best. For example, Crofty and others have explained to you in detail why the Mt St Helen's is an example of the misuse of dating methods and not a valid example of the inaccuracy of dating methods yet you continue to use it. Posters have continually asked you to explain why dating methods are based on circular reasoning but every time you attempted to do so you have unwittingly demonstrated your own misunderstanding of how radiometric dating works and total inability to comprehend why scientists are confident in its accuracy. Having said all of that. I think you are kind of right. We can't know with absolute certainty that radiometric dating is accurate. There are certain assumptions built into our calculations such as the constant rate of radioactive decay (this is not circular reason by the way). It is possible that the multiple independent dating methods converging on the same results over hundreds of thousands of trials are purely down to random chance. This is extremely improbable but it is possible. It is possible in the same way it is possible that the photons we observe today that look like they were produced in stars billions of light years away were created only 6,000 years ago and that the age (or even the existence) of those stars is illusory. It is improbable but possible so we can't rule it out. It is possible in the same way that it is possible the earth was created yesterday with all of our fake memories in tact. This too is improbable but possible so we shouldn't rule it out. Basically, your argument is that we can't know anything with certainty without empirically observing it. Even if something is 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% probably true we should discard it as useless because we don't know with absolute certainty that it is true. By your standard we don't even know if yesterday happened let alone how old rocks are. At some point you have to stop worrying about what is possible and absolute truth and think instead about what is more probable. You have left the organization but you are still thinking in black and white absolutist terms. You think you are being a free thinker and skeptical by not accepting scientific dating methods. Good for you. Now go read the science, which you clearly haven't done, and apply that same skepticism to Hovind and young earth 'science' and your own beliefs. At least then you might be able to demonstrate some intellectual integrity. You still refer to 'human' knowledge and reasoning pejoratively which suggests you maybe haven't quite escaped the Watchtower mode of thinking yet. And I apologize for the patronising tone but, like I said, I was frustrated.

  Stumbler I am going to upgrade and retool my thinking. I don't want to be intellectually lazy.
• 
  91

  Carbon dating and the Global Flood - links needed

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  James Brown

  Some young-Earth proponents recently reported that rocks were dated by the potassium-argon method to be a several million years old when they are really only a few years old. But the potassium-argon method, with its long half-life, was never intended to date rocks only 25 years old. These people have only succeeded in correctly showing that one can fool a single radiometric dating method when one uses it improperly. The false radiometric ages of several million years are due to parentless argon, as described here, and first reported in the literature some fifty years ago. Note that it would be extremely unlikely for another dating method to agree on these bogus ages. Getting agreement between more than one dating method is a recommended practice.

  I can see from Wein that there are posibly problems with the creationist results based on The argon dating method.

  I don't know if they were trying to trick the labatory or they were all just working with the information at the time.

  So I will quit my previous arguments regarding that and the Mt. St. Helens Lava.

  I will have to read digest and better understand Weins article to reacess my thoughts on circular reasoning and

  confirmation bias regarding the dating methods.
• 
  91

  Carbon dating and the Global Flood - links needed

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  James Brown

  I just cannot get over the depth of stupid displayed by Mr. Brown.

  I think there should be a new dictionary definition for stupidity

  (st-pd-t, sty-)

  n. pl. stu·pid·i·ties 1. The quality or condition of being stupid 2. A stupid act, remark, or idea. 3. James Brown - poster on Jehovah's-witness.net Out of facts and useful information. Cant leave. That's how I figured you That's why I cant buy what you say. You got nothing.
• 
  91

  Carbon dating and the Global Flood - links needed

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  James Brown

  I dont think everybody who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian.

  And having read the bible cover to cover 7 times.

  In my world anyone who believes in a 4.5 billion year old earth can not be a christian

  just by the information in the bible.

  But that is neither here nor there when it comes to dating the earth and universe.

  We just need the indisputable facts.
• 
  91

  Carbon dating and the Global Flood - links needed

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  James Brown

  So whoever thinks they knows how to date rocks tell me can they date a rock I give them accurately without me giving them any information.

  Yes!

  In many cases they will be able to check the date using multiple clocks from the same sample and check that they all give the same date.

  Unless you are trying to trick them by giving them a rock that just spewed out of a volcano. In that case they will tell you the results were all over the place and so the sample cannot give a reliable date.

  You really haven't read Wien's article have you?

  No I havent read Wiens article. I read what you wrote.

  Now I will have to read Weins article.

  I am taken aback by you answering yes. So I will read Weins article before further contention.

  But I am still not compfortable about them missdating Mount St. Helens Lava. Maybe Wein will

  clear that up.
• 
  91

  Carbon dating and the Global Flood - links needed

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  James Brown

  One would have to give a general date range so the correct isotopes are used. For instance, radiocarbon is less certain for dating younger than 10,000 years. This has been explained ad nauseum.

  So I understand you to say that I have to tell them how to set the way back machine give them information.

  Like Mr. Pebody.

  In Psychology 101. That is called confirmation bias. We search for information that confirms our ideas.

  I suspect that many here have never been to college or know the basics about thinking and that is why so many

  are falling for this baloney.

  Most people get through college without becoming evolutionary atheist.

  I know many. In fact I know zero evolutionry atheist except for the internet and social media.

  Also just in general the above is called circular reasoning.

  Whenever you use circular reasoning and confirmation bias you are going up the

  creek without a paddle.

  I'd rather just say I don't know and be an agnostic than to show everyone why my thinking is

  faulty.
• 
  91

  Carbon dating and the Global Flood - links needed

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  James Brown

  jgnat that picture does make me think of Noahs flood diferently.
• 
  91

  Carbon dating and the Global Flood - links needed

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  James Brown

  I really see it as people are using stones to date stones. I have read what Cofty posted, and what backseat devil

  posted.

  Are you saying I can take a rock that I know the history of and give it to a paleontologist

  and he can accurately date it without me telling him where it came from?

  Because that is not the impression I get as to how it works.

  The impression I get is I have to tell him where the rock came from and if that is correct that is circular reasoning

  that is rock dating rocks.

  So whoever thinks they knows how to date rocks tell me can they date a rock I give them accurately

  without me giving them any information.

  And the same question with a fossil.

  Yes or No. I don't think this is rocket science.

  Yes or no.
• 
  140

  WT Society holds EXTREME Responsibility for 1975 and False Expectations

  by flipper in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  however- many jw's who have come into the jw organization from like 1985 forward virtually may have no knowledge of the wt society's 1975 debacle and false predictions of the end times or armageddon predictions.

  just like in in the book 1984 by george orwell the wt society has a way of not only erasing it's history so no newer witnesses will be aware of their false predictions, but also they are re-writing their history as if those false predictions never happened.. so for those of you here who may have never read or heard of how whipped up into an emotional frenzy witnesses were in the years just before 1975 by the wt society claiming the end was any day now- this threads for you.

  to see the pressure that was put on jw's by the wt society to get rid of everything before " armageddon " .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  James Brown

  I graduated high school in 71.

  I wanted to go to college to further my education.

  My mother had the brothers come talk to me. They told me I would never get through school

  the end would come and I'd be wasting my time doing the wrong thing.

  So I didnt go to school. My father who was not a witness threw me out of the house as soon as

  I graduated high school. I couldnt go to college so I got married and had a kid and I spent the

  next 40 years working at menial jobs. Always tired. Always overworked.

  Just about everyday I blame my life on the watchtower and 1975.

  I get upset when I realize many people had lifes and choices. I feel I never had a choice

  to have any kind of life.

  Ultimately I realize I did have a choice but I was to confused by the watchtower being born in

  and raised to see my choices.