wizzstick

Joined

• started 36 topics
• posted 716 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by wizzstick

• 
  17

  Elder writes a weekly newspaper article

  by man in black in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  hello, lately in our local newspaper i've noticed a weekly column that is written by a current elder.

  when i left 6 years ago he was the po.

  and for some added background info , if he saw someone who was df'ed or "spiritually weak" he would go out of his way, and do his best to avoid them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  USE.

  PARAGRAPHS!

  :)
• 
  22

  Me. 2 weeks on.

  by wizzstick in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  [if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> </w:worddocument> </xml><!

  [endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:latentstyles> </xml><!

  [endif][if !mso]> <object classid="clsid:38481807-ca0e-42d2-bf39-b33af135cc4d" id=ieooui> </object> <mce:style><!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  Thanks all.

  I am being careful. Only two big conversations. With very liberal friends who know that I know where their skeletons in the closet are! I've not even said anything to my wife. Just that I'm researching.

  I am reading CoC. Truly a book written in sadness rather than in anger.
• 
  22

  Me. 2 weeks on.

  by wizzstick in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  [if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> </w:worddocument> </xml><!

  [endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:latentstyles> </xml><!

  [endif][if !mso]> <object classid="clsid:38481807-ca0e-42d2-bf39-b33af135cc4d" id=ieooui> </object> <mce:style><!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  It's now two weeks since I started posting on this board. So how is my journey going?

  Between this board, JW Facts, the WT Online Library, the WT CD-Rom, the Kingdom Interlinear, Strong’s Concordance and Wikipedia, I've been researching furiously. Literally furiously, to be honest. 25 years ago I was preparing for baptism. Simply accepting what a good family friend was telling me.

  But now I'm looking for the first time in depth. Really studying and what do I find?

  • That as a prospective (they never highlight that point) member of the Great Crowd I'm off to heaven after the Big A. WHAT THE HELL? How come they never clarified that little point? The explanations on Naos are a sham, and the 1980 WT article was nothing short of a deception.
  • That Jesus is not my mediator?! WHAT? WHAAAT? Arguably the stupidest idea going. How do I avail myself of his mediatorship? Oh he's my High Priest only is he? And where is that in the Bible?
  • Then science...realising that radiocarbon dating now proves that men existed before Adam. That Neanderthals were people. That there is no evidence whatsoever for the flood...

  *sigh*

  So that sound you can hear is my faith smashing all over the place.

  My dear wife and friends are of course still committed JW's. I've had a few conversations...a couple of penny dropping moments before they fell back on tried and tested "Satan deceives" conversation stoppers. But I'm already prepping for next time. If Satan wasn't created Satan, and only became Satan over what he did in Eden, then how could he have influenced things pre 4000BCE? Why would he have influenced such things? Afterall he wasn't Satan at that point! What things? Things like the carbon 14 levels 50,000 years ago. Man made settlements. Neanderthals.

  This process is like having a close friend or family member die. It's painful, bewildering and has acute sense of loss. But I will carry on. And, I'll keep gently plugging away to bring others away too.
• 
  26

  Do JW's even read the Watchtower?

  by zound in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i know i rarely if ever read the magazines that i used to promote and place with householders (besides the watchtower study).

  hypocritical no?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  I can even tell you when I gave up reading the mags.

  A few months after coming out of Bethel and I read this:

  http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102000486?q=cows&p=par

  I was in bed reading it and I actually said out loud "What the f8ck!". Such an obvious piece of space filler. A complete and udder waste of time.

  It won’t be long, however, before it is time for another vacation in the mountains! What a life!

  I then got a life and never bothered to read them regularly again.
• 
  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. 
• 

  wizzstick

  Thanks again jgnat.

  For me 50,000 years means that any JW is going to struggle with disproving the results for pre-Adam man made objects and the complete lack of evidence for the flood.

  Once when I had this conversation the JW steered it to say, well 10,000 years is very close to when Adam was created so we just don't know.

  But 50,000 years is irrefutable. I honestly believe this could open some peoples eyes. Hence me looking for any articles where a scientist has re-looked at the Flood subject with the newly calibrated measurements.
• 
  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. 
• 

  wizzstick

  Thanks jgnat.

  I just wondered if any scientists had looked into this using the new calibrated data. It's simply irrefutable proof and I think it could be lethal for many Witnesses faith.

  Thanks for the link though - interesting!
• 
  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. 
• 

  wizzstick

  Posted by accident to wrong poster
• 
  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. 
• 

  wizzstick

  Jame Brown - you said:

  Wizzstick. I don't get it why are you showing me an article that shows radiocarbon dating something 4,500 years old? Am I supposed to be impressed that they didn't date the site 4.5 billion years old.

  The whole point of this thread was about the flood of Noah's day, and how the discoveries at Lake Suigetsu study have provided 'a truly terrestrial record (which) gives us better resolution and confidence in radiocarbon dating'. Radiocarbon dating is accurate up to 50,000 years, which has clear implications for dating the flood. I don't give a crap about the age of the earth. Not sure why you've been posting on a subject you can't understand.

  This gives proof to my saying that they use the stones to date the stones which is circular reasoning.

  They are not using the stones to date the stones. They're using the the rate of decay of carbon-14 in the stones. I really don't think you have a clue on this subject.

  I'm not going to be a sheeple like all you here who don't know what they are talking about and act like they do. I left that back in the 80's.

  Since leaving the Witnesses you seem to have trust issues with anyone or anything that claims to be authoritive on a subject. That's up to you. But saying, as in effect you do, "You say it's black? Well I say it's white" doesn't mean you can see more clearly than the rest of us, or that we're just sheeple and you're cleverer than that.

  It's simply being arrogant and wanting to be ignorant.
• 
  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. 
• 

  wizzstick

  You've still not read the article on Lake Suigetsu. Here's a key quote:

  These varves allow a chronology to be established, because of the leaf fragments embedded in them, which have been used to calibrate the Carbon-14 time scale beyond the range of the absolute tree-ring calibration.

  They have THOUSANDS of years of lake sediment to calibrate RC dating. TENS OF THOUSANDS of years. Look at when the results were published - 2012! Not 1992!!

  As I said, science moves on. You need to keep up if you have credible points to make
• 
  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. 
• 

  wizzstick

  James - why are you quoting an 20 year article? Did you read the links I gave? Do so, the Lake Suigetsu study has provided 'a truly terrestrial record (which) gives us better resolution and confidence in radiocarbon dating. It also allows us to look at the differences between the atmosphere and oceans and study the implications for our understanding of the marine environment as part of the global carbon cycle.'

  Radiocarbon dating has moved on. You need to as well.

  Look at this. It pre-dates the Flood and Adam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnenez#Dates

  Thanks Cofty for the links. Appreciate those.