Jump to content

Arauna

Fossils are not millions of years old

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Arauna -
Arauna -
48
716

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

I left this discussion last year because the fight over semantics was so stupid. Anyone who believes the universe came from nothing or believes that something comes from nothing - one cannot argue with people like that - not worth the effort. It is a totally unscientific statement and even if you say you are a scientist 1000 times, it does not make you a scientist who bases your conclusion on evidence if you really "believe" that statement. To say that a cell "appears" to be designed proves the simplicity of the mind or proves incomprehension or lack of study of the complexity of the cell itself. Nano-biotechnology has proven the complexity. IN any case there are now many papers which prove that collagen, blood vessels and more than 10 proteins have been found together with Carbon 14 in fossils. These samples have been taken on numerous different fossils and every time there is the same result (repeated tests) without contamination.... This proves the fossils are only thousands of years old and not millions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Arauna said:

I left this discussion last year because the fight over semantics was so stupid. Anyone who believes the universe came from nothing or believes that something comes from nothing - one cannot argue with people like that - not worth the effort. It is a totally unscientific statement and even if you say you are a scientist 1000 times, it does not make you a scientist who bases your conclusion on evidence if you really "believe" that statement. To say that a cell "appears" to be designed proves the simplicity of the mind or proves incomprehension or lack of study of the complexity of the cell itself. Nano-biotechnology has proven the complexity. IN any case there are now many papers which prove that collagen, blood vessels and more than 10 proteins have been found together with Carbon 14 in fossils. These samples have been taken on numerous different fossils and every time there is the same result (repeated tests) without contamination.... This proves the fossils are only thousands of years old and not millions.

Can you explain this comment to me in more simple terms please, I'm only a poorly educated man. 

I've always believed that God created everything. I presumed he turned energy into matter. ( I'm not scientific in any way ). 

As for 'scientists', scientist is only a word, and to be one you need worldly wisdom not the wisdom from God, so being a 'scientist' doesn't mean much when viewing things from God's perspective does it ?  I've always thought 'scientists' would find the result they are being paid to find, 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'. 

When i first learnt the JW beliefs i was taught that each Creative day was 7,000 years long. However the teaching seems to be now that they have no idea how long a creative day was. This was one of my first points of disappointment with the JW Org, this 'change of mind' 'Change of direction'. It brings us back to the inspired / not inspired / guess work problem. 

I know nothing about Carbon dating, but aren't the scrolls / parchments dated somehow ? 

Although I'm no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses, i am still a Christian. I still believe that Almighty God is the Creator of all things good, and that Jesus Christ is God's son and he fulfilled the ransom price. Hence I pray to God through Christ and still read God's word. 

Everyone knows why i left the org, but I have never said ALL of its teachings are wrong. However when the GB / Org changes its mind on things that are the foundation of its beliefs, then the complete religion becomes unstable. 

Are you now suggesting that the old belief of each Creative day being 7,000 years long, may be true ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

As for 'scientists', scientist is only a word, and to be one you need worldly wisdom not the wisdom from God, so being a 'scientist' doesn't mean much when viewing things from God's perspective does it ?  I've always thought 'scientists' would find the result they are being paid to find, 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'.

This is a good point. In fact, most of the things you have said in your post coincide with things I have also believed. It should be pointed out though that scientists, at least those who deal with sociological issues are quick to point out that there has been more profit for many millennia in claiming that one has wisdom from God. Those who have been paying science pipers get pretty much the same answer from 99% of them, but those who have been paying the god's-wisdom pipers have been getting thousands of divergent answers from 99% of them. 

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

When i first learnt the JW beliefs i was taught that each Creative day was 7,000 years long. However the teaching seems to be now that they have no idea how long a creative day was.

This is true. There was never any Biblical evidence. It was all conjecture and wishful thinking, based on nothing at all. Therefore, there is no reason to think that the creative days were the same length, nor that any of them would have been limited to less than a billion years each. Our only reason for claiming that they were not 24 hours each is that we have decided to accept some of the evidence from scientists.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Are you now suggesting that the old belief of each Creative day being 7,000 years long, may be true ? 

I won't try to answer for Arauna, but I think that many Witnesses are still concerned about the "slippery slope" of accepting scientific evidence without the approval of the Governing Body through direct statements in the Watchtower publications. I've also heard it specifically admitted by GB "representatives" that this is one of the reasons that college is considered to be so dangerous. It's because the GB and the researchers and writers of our publications don't have time to rule on every single piece of evidence, as to whether it can be accepted, rejected, or partially accepted in a re-defined chronological context. The practice at many colleges is to ask the student to evaluate the importance of various pieces of evidence, and this puts Witness students in a "bind."

For example, I know of JWs who even in High School, have decided to accept evolution in the context of their classes and reject it in the context of the congregation. One of them brought up a topic to me that I decided to look into when an opportunity arose. I knew that scientists have long theorized that birds evolved from dinosaurs based only on skeletal evidence comparing birds and dinosaurs. Then, more recently, fossils were discovered with patterns of fossilized "feathers" preserved with the skeleton in the exact places where such feathers would have been expected. This confused me, and I was sure that they were being interpreted as feathers, but were actually "ferns" or leaves or a superimposed skeleton of a separate bird. But then more of them showed up. I was at a museum on the campus of Yale university in New Haven, CT, and saw some for myself, and asked a specialist there if they could possibly be anything else. He showed me that this was not even controversial any more. There were now several of these fossils.

I would not know how to treat such evidence if I were in a class that discussed it. My father still thinks they are ferns or misinterpretations. My mother still thinks that Satan has manipulated some of the evidence from fossils. Of course, that theory is common among "Young Earth" fundamentalists, too, but it causes many more questions. If Satan can make small adjustments in the evidence, why not make bigger adjustments? Was he given a limit as to the number of adjustments he could make, and a limited number of places to bury them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JW Insider Fantastic response thank you.

One big problem, I have no 'faith' in your GB any more. I'm no longer a JW and having done much 'research' I have lost all my trust in the GB. Details not needed as others will get bored with my comment. 

I do not believe the GB are the 'Faithful slave' and i do not believe they have God's guidance. 

But to balance that, I don't take for facts, the words of 'scientists' either. 

I'm still searching, and if God wants me to find answers I'm sure i will find them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2019 at 7:38 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Everyone knows why i left the org, but I have never said ALL of its teachings are wrong.

 

On 1/5/2019 at 10:39 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

I'm still searching, and if God wants me to find answers I'm sure i will find them. 

The first issue of the Watchtower made the point that truth is truth even if it comes from the mouth of Satan the Devil. Of course, we might expect the Devil to be selective about which truth to reveal, how much of it, and then be on the lookout for ulterior motives. Same is true of truth from anywhere. I think your attitude in the above statements shows reasonableness.

You might know that I also do not think the GB are the exact equivalent of the "faithful and discreet slave" of Jesus' parable. But this does not mean that we can't learn from the GB, get spiritual food from the GB, learn to grow and mature from such food, and then grow into mature Christians ourselves who should be able to distinguish right from wrong, and move on to more mature doctrines, including "standing on our own." I think that the GB serve a purpose within the congregation. They are imperfect and should never give the impression that their word is final. As one of them has publicly admitted, this would be very presumptuous of them if they did this.

A lot of Witnesses are anxious to relieve themselves from any spiritual responsibility and push all their thinking off on others, not realizing that this was never the way Jehovah intended for any of us to worship him. So a lot of JWs effectively "worship" the GB and hang on their every word. Sometimes that reverence for the GB takes a more subtle 'tack' and we begin to think that criticism of the GB makes Satan happy. Or that questioning the GB is the same as doubting Jehovah. I won't bore you with a dozen scripture showing why this is wrong, because I suspect you already know them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

 

The first issue of the Watchtower made the point that truth is truth even if it comes from the mouth of Satan the Devil. Of course, we might expect the Devil to be selective about which truth to reveal, how much of it, and then be on the lookout for ulterior motives. Same is true of truth from anywhere. I think your attitude in the above statements shows reasonableness.

You might know that I also do not think the GB are the exact equivalent of the "faithful and discreet slave" of Jesus' parable. But this does not mean that we can't learn from the GB, get spiritual food from the GB, learn to grow and mature from such food, and then grow into mature Christians ourselves who should be able to distinguish right from wrong, and move on to more mature doctrines, including "standing on our own." I think that the GB serve a purpose within the congregation. They are imperfect and should never give the impression that their word is final. As one of them admitted, this would be very presumptuous of them if they did this.

A lot of Witnesses are anxious to relieve themselves from any spiritual responsibility and push all their thinking off on others, not realizing that this was never the way Jehovah intended for any of us to worship him. So a lot of JWs effectively "worship" the GB and hang on their every word. Sometimes that reverence for the GB takes a more subtle 'tack' and we begin to think that criticism of the GB makes Satan happy. Or that questioning the GB is the same as doubting Jehovah. I won't bore you with a dozen scripture showing why this is wrong, because I suspect you already know them.

 

But to be in the JW Org, and to openly disagree with the GB, will get a person disfellowshipped for 'Causing a division within the congregation'. A person will be called an Apostate for disagreeing with the GB especially if said person introduces ideas of their own. 

And there is also the point of conscience when going on the ministry knowing that some of the things you have to tell people are not true. For example, it has been proven that some quotes in Watchtower magazines are actually misquotes, deliberate misquotes. That amounts to lies. And I'm sorry to bore you with this, but it would be impossible to warn people inside or outside the JW Org about the serious danger of child abuse within the JW org, whilst being a member of JW Org. That would also get a person disfellowshipped.

I'm totally off topic here and I apologise for this. Where is @Arauna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Arauna said:

I left this discussion last year because the fight over semantics was so stupid. Anyone who believes the universe came from nothing or believes that something comes from nothing - one cannot argue with people like that - not worth the effort. It is a totally unscientific statement and even if you say you are a scientist 1000 times, it does not make you a scientist who bases your conclusion on evidence if you really "believe" that statement. To say that a cell "appears" to be designed proves the simplicity of the mind or proves incomprehension or lack of study of the complexity of the cell itself. Nano-biotechnology has proven the complexity. IN any case there are now many papers which prove that collagen, blood vessels and more than 10 proteins have been found together with Carbon 14 in fossils. These samples have been taken on numerous different fossils and every time there is the same result (repeated tests) without contamination.... This proves the fossils are only thousands of years old and not millions.

Dear Arauna and other readers.

quote: "Anyone who believes the universe came from nothing or believes that something comes from nothing ..."

Concept of "Nothing" is somehow unclear, indistinctive. About What one thinking when talk about existence of "nothing" and how "from nothing can not come to something" ? Who promote idea that universe came from nothing? Does "science and scientist"  promote this idea? Or, people who have faith in Bible came to this question/logic  as respond to some "scientific" explanation about life origin on Earth and origin of Universe that they found as not reasonable or possible. I do not know if theory about Big Bang is still in play, but as i can see Bib Bang thesis not promote idea of "nothing". Because for such Big Explosion is need existence of "something" to explode. 

 

quote:  "It is a totally unscientific statement and even if you say you are a scientist 1000 times, it does not make you a scientist..."

If i am not "scientist" do I have  "credential"  to discuss about "science", or just to have and express my opinion, critical thinking, criticism, feelings about subject, etc? To be in rank of "scientist" one need to have Higher Education. JW members are not , in general, scientists. Few of them are Highly educated and GB discourage members to look for such education, even to such measure to "marking" those JW who would like to go to University.

If you are not carpenter, you have nothing  to tell/teach about carpentry those people who are carpenters. Just my level of "unscientific" logic :)))  

 

quote:  "IN any case there are now many papers which prove that..."

What papers? "Scientific" magazines or some Sport magazines, or WTJWorg publications  that made quotes from some "scientific" editions, books, magazines? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carbon 14 breaks down very quickly. Look it up on Wikipedia.   Mr. Butler - do not be too humble my dear.... one does not need  intelligence to understand it - one just needs to take a little time to do the research.... search and you shall find.   Jehovah's spirit helps with the rest and an honest and unbiased spirit helps to find the truth.

There are many kinds of scientists but I do not believe that evolution is a science - no scientific method to speak of and not much evidence (fossil record non-existent especially at the bottom (basis) of the evolutionary tree - also no evidence how birds developed. ... all conjecture.  There are really too many unexplained miracles (miracle: a remarkable event or development that brings  only positive consequences.)

(The Cambrium explosion shows that all species suddenly appeared fully developed.  Here is a definition of it Cambrian explosion - I quickly looked it up:  "The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the relatively short span event, occurring approximately 541 million years ago in the Cambrian period, during which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record." (Of course these dates are totally manufactured dates.... similar to the so-called pictures of the progression of man.)

Dating is also a subject that has not withstood the "science" test. There is a lot of data available in this to read.

The foundation of our belief is Jehovah and Jesus Christ and the fulfillment of the first prophecy of a seed / king that would pay the ransom and then later rule to restore the original purpose of God.  Additionally, how God worked throughout the ages to fulfill this prophecy and how he gave us a genealogy and a timeline to understand the progress of his plan. 

I did not  know that evolution versus creation was the most important subject - as you indicated in your remark.  For me the Bible is enough evidence that God exists and created everything and has a restoration plan - but evolution versus creation helps to provide the additional proof. Whether it is 7000 years or not does not change the fact that he created it all and we are now in the day of rest which is about 6000 years so far. According to Hebrews 4 there is another rest within the rest waiting - the 1000 years.

I have seen quite a few videos where the high priest of Evolution - Mr R Dawkins said that something can come from nothing.  I also have seen the audience laugh at this - which is quite right.   I also have seen him say on two occasions that 'aliens' seeded our life...... that is the extent of the evolutionists brilliant philosophy.  His book: the god delusion, has misled thousands of people and these people believe he is so smart.  When one uses the magic word 'science" these days everyone thinks it is infallible. 

I have some of my own opinions but I do not go and preach my own personal opinions because I believe the kingdom message is the most important and this is what we must preach.  There is no doubt in my mind that the faithful slave understands the kingdom government perfectly. Other Christian religions fail on this topic completely.

Mr Butler, a person can make a lot of trouble for yourself if you go and preach your own message.  Jehovah will correct all discrepancies in his own time.  If you do not trust Jehovah to correct things then you cannot be a witness and serve alongside his other servants. ... and then you may lose your everlasting life.  One cannot act in an immature way and act independently and insist you are right - it is disruptive and egotistical - anointed or not.  

I agree - the dynamic energy of Jehovah created the entire physical universe  - Isaiah 40 says that the stars came forth by his dynamic energy (projected energy).  So the physical universe did not come from nothing.  If one can put this in a human scale - I always think of Jehovah bringing forth the entire physical universe (with all its galaxies) and with its beginning of  time and  the 3 dimensions of space and all the different forces such as gravity, weak and strong force, into existence by his  dynamic energy as small as a single dust particle.  (it may have been a singularity but then the explosion would have been totally controlled to bring forth the elements in the universe)

"The big bang theory actually proved a 'beginning' so scientists quickly moved away from this and started playing with math and string theory to try to prove alternative universes (23 of them) to increase the 'chance' of life starting somewhere out there.

One need not be a scientist to understand the creation - there are many books out there written for a lay person and many books that also show the 'science delusion".  A very good one is The "devils" delusion by Dr Berlinsky which actually shows one the delusion people have about science.

People always think scientists are not driven by ambition and ego and always follow the truth -  where the facts lead.  Think again.  I do think there are some sciences which are more scientific than others but do not be mislead at what goes on behind the scenes and the reputations involved.  

To believe that one needs a science degree to understand creation is ludicrous - it is similar to the Pharisees which did not believe that Jesus or his disciples could understand the scriptures because they did not have higher education in the Mosaic law.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have written somewhere about how embarrassing it is to visit the Ithaca Museum of Earth Science with Tom Pearlsnswine and hear him muttering to himself and all in earshot the whole time about the ‘wiles of Satan’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites





  • Topics

  • Posts

    • True, however, testing the spirit does not include drawing one's own conclusions outside scripture. I have not found an insistence where the Watchtower has gone beyond what is written. Do they try to simplify certain things, yes they do. That doesn’t mean they are stepping away from the context. Another thing is with the comparison made. The GB are following the true spirit of God like the apostles. Therefore, they have NOT taken the position of the Jerusalem counsel. If you have, then you sit in Moses seat. Matthew 23:2 If the passion is to correct, as God corrected his people, Then I would suspect there is a resemblance to be equal to Christ as the Pope seems to indicate. The GB do not hold themselves in that high regard as to think, they can question God's motives for humanity. I would recommend studying the issue further. There are areas that haven’t been included with many presentations here. Since you claim the Watchtower is misrepresenting an issue that has become an obstacle to your personal faith, then I would make light of JTR and TTH comments about contacting the Watchtower directly. Feeding an assumption only emboldens the God of this world, no one else. Correct. There is only one way to view scripture. Anyone deviating from that is causing personal harm to the spirit of others. It doesn’t matter if those individuals hate the Watchtower, it’s by their own spoken words and actions of clear and concise misinterpretation of scripture, and misapplication of the Watchtower literature where they fail to see the difference. Removing themselves from the context of scripture to argue with the strength of hate and discourse is the sole definition of scripture when Christ clearly stated not to and to stay away from. Those are the dangers when we engage in an open forum. We like to think it is to discuss issues. However, the ever present danger will always be, the influence of the devil. It is one thing to defend the truth, but quite another thing to defend the truth when one’s heart is conflicted. Merely following that conduct disqualifies anyone from stating they are Christian. That is the kind of Christian Jesus spoke of as a danger. The confusion would lie with how the public perceives the Watchtower under the direction of the bible Student association. The word “association” should give anyone, pause to rethink, Russell and Rutherford belonged to the International Bible Student Association. A reason, Rutherford dismissed the edger pyramid scheme straight up. Russell, used it as a comparison, nothing more. Another thing that witnesses should consider, those works were made by not allowing Christendom’s view of scripture. Therefore, Russell essentially started from scratch. There are far more reasons why those dates were accepted. Mainly, by events of that time. Bible Students still believe, the Jewish nation has a pivotal role in the last days. According to Christ everyone became relative in the last days including the Jews. They are not the sole reason for the last days as Christendom exerts. Remember, even the most conservative view which is Bishop Ussher, his calculation referenced 586BC as the 3rd instance of judgment by Nebuchadnezzar. The third, not the first nor the second as historians and scholars claim, but the third. This is why history itself is flawed, since they continue to insist, there were only 2 campaigns against Judea and Jerusalem. Mainly 597-587BC. I will not beat on the bush with this one. I am confident we both know what limitations are imposed and previous actions taken.  
    • An interesting take with a lot to say for it. When Jude mentions these "rocks beneath the surface" for example, it always reminds me of the first time I read "Paul and Thecla" while at Bethel, but at the NYPL, via a book about Christian widows of the 2nd century. Paul and Thecla is an early Christian short story or novella with Thecla, not Paul, as the hero. It's one of a few stories of this type, probably written by and for women in the early Christian congregations. The antagonists of some of these stories are the 2nd century "circuit overseers" who would go from congregation to congregation saying all the right things from the "platform" but then they would also quietly worm their way into the houses of well-meaning sisters and widows, and try to take advantage of them sexually. I was quite surprised when the Watchtower last year mentioned Paul and Thecla for the second time in nearly 100 years, and was again surprisingly supportive of the work as containing possible reflections of true traditions believed in the 2nd century: *** w18 March p. 13 par. 3 Questions From Readers *** The Acts of Paul and Thecla was highly regarded in early centuries, as confirmed by the fact that 80 Greek manuscripts of it exist, as well as versions in other languages. Thus, our artistic presentations are in line with some ancient indications of what the apostle looked like. I personally have never experienced a "bad" circuit overseer. All of them have been exemplary and I have always looked forward to their visits, especially when hearing a new one for the first time. But I think all of us old-timers have had experience with congregational drifters, and we often look at them with the same kinds of suspicions. Sometimes it's a young brother who is very vague about his last congregation and who quickly latches on to an association with another eligible sister. Sometimes it's a more elderly brother, perhaps even a special pioneer, looking for an alternate congregation, hoping the trouble he caused in the last congregation won't get reported in too much detail. (Speaking from a real example, this elderly brother also latched onto a "relationship," and place to stay, with a family of sisters: a sister with an unbelieving and ailing husband, and a couple of daughters. It was a recipe for disaster.) The younger brother caused some heart-ache by getting engaged to a sister, and the engagement was later broken off.  It's hard for me not to imagine such cases when I read Jude. So, at first, it was hard for me to see them as drifters into forums like this one to cause other kinds of trouble, but I can definitely see a similarity now.  
    • I’m not really sure what “worshipful” means.  When celebrities come into town, they are mobbed by fans. Are those fans worshipful? I might say yes, but the fans themselves will just say they they are flocking to them out of respect for their accomplishments. If brothers pose for selfies with the GB members (much to the latter’s annoyance, I am consistently told, someone said with the possible exception of Lett) are they “worshipful?” It’s in the eye of the beholder, I think. Though I have a great many faults, admiring personalities is not one of them. I would love to have a GB member stay at my house so I could ignore him. “There’s your room—make yourself at home. If you’d like to visit, that works fine, but you have many things to do and if you ignore us completely that also works fine with us,”  Probably there are few words they could hear that would please them more. And no, @James Thomas Rook Jr., I wouldn’t present them with a list of my QUESTIONS that, as MEN of HONOR, they are obligated to answer,
    • Just for interest, here is an interview with prince Andrew. It's acutely embarrassing the excuses  he makes and the denials.... Read comments, they are entertaining  
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.