by Mr. Falcon 40 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
that african dinosaur did too much of a good job there... no leaves left.
hahahahahaahahahaha
(on a side note, I always liked how despite the variety of different cultures in Northern Africa, they just put one black dude and a dinosaur. Those ignorant racists might as well just wrote "here be monsters and negroes" in parenthesis below "AFRICA")
ummmm... somebody help me out on this....
I just read through a 1990 Awake article (sorry my browser won't let me paste for some reason) about dinosaurs. And it hints that Noah's Flood destroyed the dinosaurs. But it says that Noah's Flood happened only 4,300 years ago. But dinosaur remains are slightly older than that.
help me.
The Borg doesn't accept radio carbon dating.
Can't help you here Falcon....don't have the WT CD library. In the meantime, Blondie posted this the other day from a '73 WT...
*** w73 7/15 p. 447 Questions From Readers ***
If the Hebrew expression translated “great sea monsters” [Hebrew, tan·ni·nim′] includes dinosaurs, which often inhabited swampy, watery areas, this would mean that dinosaurs were created on the fifth “day.” (Gen. 1:21) We do not know whether they continued to exist until man was created (toward the close of the sixth “day”). At the very latest it seems likely that they must have disappeared off the earth at the time of the flood of Noah’s day. Dinosaurs were reptiles, and some kinds of dinosaurs bear strong resemblance structurally and otherwise to lizards (sauros is, in fact, the Greek word for “lizard”; saura in Leviticus 11:29, LXX). Not all types of dinosaurs were of such gigantic size. Hence, even if they had survived till the Flood, this would not have required taking pairs of the mammoth varieties into the ark. Other smaller members of the particular family or “kind” to which these belonged would have sufficed to fulfill the divine command.
oh dear lord. I got to get out of this cult. I swear if you proved to these people that 2 + 2 = 4, they still wouldn't believe you.
Is their stance on carbon dating still the same as it was in the early 90's?
I swear... the WT writing staff is devoid of any smidgen of intelligence
But then again... I guess we were devoid of it as well because we accepted it without question.
Other smaller members of the particular family or “kind” to which these belonged would have sufficed to fulfill the divine command.
LOL... so, um, what exactly stood in for the T-Rex? And the whatever-they-call-Brontosauroses-these-days? What about that big thing with the horns? Tricerasomethin-or-other
hahahaha, undercover.
And to think that some asshat in the Writing Department typed this up, leaned back in his chair and smugly said, "Booyah!" . Then he ripped it off of his typewriter, ran up stairs, showed his superior and was commended. And if you question this you are considered "evil".
What is this? North Korea?
"For his own amusment."
The Insight book still quotes some dude from 1955 criticizing carbon dating.
There really isn't much new about it that I could find in a quick search. In some Awake! articles they seem to accept carbon dating conclusions because they correspond to their preconceived beliefs about the Bible, but there is little commentary on the method itself. There is no "new light" contradicting the Insight book's view that I could find.
so, um, what exactly stood in for the T-Rex?
Easy answer undercover. Noah didn't bring full-grown T.Rex's on the ark. They brought young ones not yet full-grown! Jeez...
This is from a JW site...www.jw-archive.org...and they posted this article " T.Rex Toddler Answers Noah's Ark Questions "
In 2006, the fossil of a juvenile Tyrannosaurus-like dinosaur named Tarbosaurus was collected from the Gobi Desert. Investigators examined the fossil in detail this year and estimated that the creature died at two to three years of age. This young specimen not only offers insights into the growth and development of these dinosaurs, it also sheds light on certain misconceptions connected to the biblical account of Noah's Ark.
The first objection assumes that Noah and his family had to have taken full-grown dinosaurs on board the Ark, which is typically presumed to have been smaller than its actual biblical dimensions. The Ark was at least 45 feet high, minus the required dimensions for hull structure. 3 If the three decks that the Lord specified for its construction were evenly spaced from bottom to top, they would have offered about 15 feet of clearance. Tyrannosaurs could reach 40 feet in length, and the adults would therefore not have fit well on such a deck.
But why would Noah have taken older dinosaurs on board, when younger ones would have fit just fine? The juvenile Tarbosaurus under investigation would have stood waist-high next to most men, and therefore it would have been easily accommodated on the Ark.
