by Wolfgirl 86 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Sorry, I don't have time to search the site right now. This bloody French ISP is rubbish, and I keep getting dropped when I try anything that takes more than 10 seconds. *rolls eyes*
Has the Society ever come up with any intelligent reasoning to counter the ages that carbon dating/science has given to various artifacts, i.e. tools that date from WAAAAAYYYY before when man was 'created'? That was something that always bothered me when I was a JW.
Not really. They used to print material from time to time that was basically borrowed from the Young-Earth Creationists and pretend it was their own research, but they've pretty much backed off from this after about 1985.
In the 1985 Creation book, they quoted from Popular Science magazine to the effect that radioactive dating may be terribly wrong and therefore that man may have existed for only a few thousand years, rather than the hundreds of thousands claimed by scientists. What they failed to tell the reader was that the quote was not from Popular Science writing editorially, but was from a Seventh-Day Adventist physicist they interviewed who was basically telling them his religious views and claiming that his research indicated that the entire universe was created only about 6,000 years ago. Ironically, this was put in an article that showed how well carbon dating worked for time periods under 50,000 years. You can read about the details of this bit of idiocy by the WTS here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/ce08.htm .
In general the Society's attacks on radioactive dating methods are fuzzy, generalized criticisms of the form, "Well, they can't really know cuz they weren't there." WTS writers never deal with specifics because they're too ignorant of science to know what they're talking about. That's why they've virtually plagiarized YEC material.
AlanF
Hi Wolfgirl,
I'm no expert but my Geology prof. explained that Carbon dating is limited by the regular decay rate of the carbon 12 isotope to about 36,000 years. Within this 36,000 year window the error margin is 50 to 300 years. This error margin is frequently sited by JWs and other Fundies as the reason we cannot trust this dating method. This argument is quickly destroyed however, by realizing that 36,000 years is still plenty of time to prove that all the Watch Tower's post-human-creation events (the last 6000 + years) are easily datable to be older than any thing the Watch Tower teaches is possible even if there were a 1000 year margin of error. If human remains are dated at 30,000 years ago for example the error margin could mean anywhere between 30,300 to 29,700 years ago which still disproves the Bible's own chronology by several thousands of years older. This is why the Bible's story of human creation and the Flood are proven false by Carbon dating alone not to mention all the other evidences which converge to prove beyond any reason that these biblical stories are fairy tales. The Watch Tower relies on common peoples' ignorance of the real facts to sell their Creationism nonsense.
Edited by - LIberty on 20 September 2002 16:18:10
Thanks for the info, guys. I'm just now learning how much of their stuff has been misquoted or taken out of context. I always accepted the quotes when I was in the rank and file. And thanks for the link...*going to read it now* If you've got any more links like that, pass 'em along, please! :)
Storing up the ammo in case my sister finally gets the balls to ask me if I'm coming back. :)
Those who would argue with carbon dating also throw out any evidence from molecular biology. That field similarly tells us that the most recent ancestor of all humans was much longer than 4,000 years ago. Much, much longer. Sorry, Noah. And sorry Adam, too.
How does one figure that the great diversity of humans, physically, linguistically, culturally, etc., was a product of only a few thousand years of development? Apologists have actually included extremely rapid rates of microevolution (or speciation from the biblical 'kinds', or genera) in their explanations of the diversity of the animal kingdom since the 'flood'. That's because all the species now present don't actually fit into a box of the dimensions of the ark. Yes, they have to make all kinds of assumptions to mathematically squeeze all the animals into Noah's ark...
...In other words, the species we see today have diverged from the original 'kinds'. Remember the scripture that says 'each according to its own kind'? Yeah, that's the one. So 'kind' means genus, not species. Just in case you were prone to believe what the geneticists tell you about reproduction...
Wait, we don't have to buy that explanation...we know that while lions and tigers might both be cats, the offspring of a lion and tiger mating are not themselves fertile. They are separate species by definition; therefore it is entirely arbitrary (not to mention wrong) to say that a genus 'reproduces according to its own kind'. Bogus.
So Noah would have had to keep a pen for each species: lions, tigers, sabertooths (watch out for those teeth), etc...
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
And back to the original topic of carbon dating...
A bit about a flightless bird, the moa, from http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/birds/printouts/Moa.shtml
The oldest-known moa fossils date from 2.4 million years ago. The last of the moa (the smaller species) lived on the South Island of New Zealand until the 1700's.
So, do you throw out those dates from millions of years ago? Because it looks like moas continually inhabited New Zealand until not long after humans arrived. How would you explain how the moas got to New Zealand from Mr. Ararat, considering they could not fly over the Indian Ocean? Wouldn't humans have reached New Zealand faster?
Try to spin that one without spinning your head. I sure can't.
cellmould
By the way, for anyone who doesn't know this tidbit already, check the date given for the oldest mummy ever discovered. My dad told that he thought this man died in 'the flood'. Hmmm...his DNA shows that he has living relatives. By the way, his closest living relatives do not live in the Middle East (which you would expect if he were related through Noah) but rather in Europe, where he was found.
Wow...that's a lot of info, and here's something I never thought of before:
That's because all the species now present don't actually fit into a box of the dimensions of the ark.
Why didn't I ever think of that? I mean, that Awake! education is = to university degree, right?
Thanks for the help. I'm even more convinced since reading this site than I ever was...I'm not going back.
I saw a bit on T.V. recently about DNA testing that shows the we all decended from a one female, I think they have dubbed her Lucy, who may have lived a million years ago in Africa. That includes europeans, africans, chinese, arabs, etc.. She may be the real Eve.
Wolfgirl,
I have never been a JW, but I do believe the Bible.
Carbon "dating" as well as other forms of radiometric "dating" do not actually measure dates. these methods simply measure the ratios of various isotopes of decaying substances. For example ice "decays" into water in a glass on your kitchen table. You can accurately measure the ratio of ice and water at the present. However you don't know for sure how much ice and water were originally present without actually being there to begin with. The same is true of radiometric "dates" which arn't really dates at all but simply unverifible calculations based on present isotope ratios.
Also those who believe in the biblical chronology do not "simply throw out any evidence from molecular biology" as many leading creationists have Ph.D's in molecular biology. A book called "Evolution: A Theory in Chrisis" by Michael Denton Ph.D (At the time of the books writing Dr. Denton was not even a Biblical creationist) shows from molecular biology that Macro-Evolution could have not produced the genetic relationships that we see today.
Just because the Watchtower is wrong doen't mean that God's word is.
Hoob,
Please dont tell me you think the earth is 6,000 years old......
