by sspo 10 Replies latest jw experiences
Watching 60 minutes and they're showing a skeleton that is 1.9 million years old... found in South Africa.
The expert agree on its age and that's so far off from what the bible says of Adam being created 6000 years ago.
For 32 years as a JW i argued with people in trying to prove that the bible is truthful in everything it says but
i finally realized a few years ago that it 's just another "Holy Book" written by men.
I was just gonna start a thread on that! I saw it too.... Yeah its amazing that just a few years ago I would have regarded that as a 'trick of satan' rather than looking at the evidence from a logical point of view.
If a person were to study among the sciences of earth's geological formations, bio genetic evolution, astrophysics as a few its becomes quite clear
that the earth is much, much older than a few thousand years.
This is why the ancients perceived the age and beginning of the earth for they had little knowledge of the world we live in as we have
accumulated up to are modern era.
The evolution of human ignorance is a reality, that many religionists forget and not accept as a known fact.
Yep...unless scientific discovery agreed with the Watchtower's doctrine...we were taught to sneer with superiority at it's ignorance. There was a time in history when religious leaders thought the earth was the center of the universe and all the planets revolved around it . Anyone who didn't believe this was punished for being a heretic. The WTBTS is constantly looking for confirmation of their own foregone conclusion, that the Bible and their interpretation of it is absolutely true, and will not tolerate any other view until it is ablolutely in their face that they had it wrong. The more discoveries like the one you mentioned, are made...the more we realize that the Bible was likely never meant to be taken literally ie Noahs Ark. Magic trees, burning bushes, walking on water, talking serpants...etc.
One would have to admit that the evolution of intelligence is not a trait of the GB nor of the FDS (whatever that is) . Rather the intelligence quotient of most dubs is on the decrease rather than either static or fluctating.
"Evidence suggests that they walked upright but took refuge in trees, were tall for their time (4 ft. 4 in.) but squat in shape, had the dainty teeth and protruding nose of a modern human but a tiny brain." When I read this from the article, I thought my gosh they are talking about the dubs in their d-d unministry, i.e. protruding nose (dubs are nosy), tiny brain (need i say more). well thats the equivelent of a modern day door basher if there even was one, probably of the species "homoignoramuseldoritis."
"Evidence suggests that they walked upright but took refuge in trees, were tall for their time (4 ft. 4 in.) but squat in shape, had the dainty teeth and protruding nose of a modern human but a tiny brain." When I read this from the article, I thought my gosh they are talking about the dubs in their d-d unministry, i.e. protruding nose (dubs are nosy), tiny brain (need i say more). well thats the equivelent of a modern day door basher if there even was one, probably of the species "homoignoramuseldoritis."
The witlesses always discredit science when science proves them wrong. Take carbon dating, which is used to prove that the earth is much older than 6,000 years (or even 50,000 years) old. You will hear them talking as if this is orders of magnitude off--something could be 4,000 years old or 4 billion years old, and the readings would be the same. I doubt that carbon dating has that much room for error. You might get some error--say 10% off. But, nothing like 5 or 6 magnitudes of order off.
I'd like to see a Jay Leno-style interview with random JWs asking them things like: What does the phrase "orders of magnitude" mean? What does the word "science" mean? What is the scientific method? What is abiogenesis? What is the peer review process?
They mock what they don't understand.
Fundamentalist apologists have explained why such data is not a problem. It's called, "Appearance of Age".
This is because the world today is not as it was in creation. God's creative powers are at rest now, and He is maintaining the creation using present laws of physics. The original created world, perfect and non-decaying at first, was subsequently cursed and made subject to decay and death (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20, etc.). Furthermore, even that world was destroyed by the Flood of Noah, so that the world we live in today is a relic of destructive processes, not creative processes. Any effort to apply present processes and process rates to creation is doomed to failure.
It is claimed by old-universe advocates that Romans 1:20 reveals that truth about creation and God's character must be "clearly seen" from the study of the creation. Any unregenerate scientist, using valid theory and careful analysis, must be able to determine the age and origin of any object. Since secular scientists have concluded the universe began with a Big Bang, that must be the way it happened. God could not have created with the appearance of a Big Bang if He didn't use that method, so that must be the way He did it. After all, God cannot lie!
But this position denies the clear Scriptural teachings regarding Creation, the Fall, and the Flood. Furthermore, it denies the very possibility of creation, for creation without the appearance of "age" is impossible.
God, in His sovereignty, knew that fallen man, living in the post-Flood world might wrongly conclude the age and origin of things. For just that reason, He gave us a clear record of what He had done and when He had done it. Furthermore, when we look at the evidence in light of what He has told us, the universe doesn't even look old. The real evidence is fully compatible with an origin only thousands of years ago.
On the other hand, if fallen scientists extrapolating present process are right and the universe is old, then God has lied to us, for He clearly said He created all things in six days, not too long ago.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1088
(In case anyone is wondering, I regard this theory as anti-intellectual hogwash.)
