• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

gnostic

The Lost One
I was not saying that the testimony should be accepted without investigation. My analogy showed it was dismissed without further information.
Perhaps because they dismissed the eyewitness' testimony, and refused to follow that lead, they miss evidence pertinent to the case, and are satisfied with what they have.



A man created by God is not an unfounded assumption, in the same way that a robot made by a man, is not an unfounded assumption.
You are not making assumptions based on anything you haven't seen, or don't know to have happened, and must have happened.
A child who is told that a stork delivered them to their mom, would not know otherwise, unless they saw and experienced the process that really takes place. Without any of that knowledge they will assume.
I think some make the mistake of thinking that because people wear fancy lab coats, and use fancy terms, they are the only ones that can gather evidence, and make inference from them.
That simply is not reality.


Science, when used correctly, is a good instrument.
When it is misused and abused, it no longer appears useful.
Some speak of science, in a way similar to the Dawkins and Krauss crowd.
Science is ongoing. It doesn't stop at point D and say, "This is it." because further tests and discoveries, reveal new information, and this information is used for further discoveries. Some of these discoveries reveal that some earlier understandings that were assumed need to change. That is how science works.

Many scientists are not ashamed about that, because they understand that they are using a methodology that is limited, and their own senses which are needed to make inference are limited. So they continue to do science, and some admit that one discovery can overturn practically everything they think they know.

However, they are those atheistic minded, who think that science somehow proves something. It doesn't.
That, to me is a misuse of science. Science does not disprove, nor prove what it can't possibly know.
Sure, men can work out their algorithms, but that's all they have.

Scientists are not the only ones with ideas, nor are they the only ones with empirical evidence, and who use the scientific method. If that were the case, everyone else may as well be blind, deaf, and completely insensitive to everything.


Thank you. I appreciate that. It sounds like science.



So are you saying that you eliminate all things that you don't see a need for intelligent design.
How do you determine if something required an intelligent designer?


What was the contrary physical evidence?
Was it the DNA samples from the drops of blood; the fingerprints?
So someone who claims they witnesses the crime, and the one in custody is innocent, and you refuse to investigate?
What kind of detective are you? Not one I would hire.

Detectives do miss evidence - like where there may be two sets of blood drops/stains, or fingerprint. So the real perpetrator(s) get away because of sloppy detective work.
What does any of this to do with JW’s position on evolution?

Are you making police investigation, forensic methodology and legal proceeding and witness and suspect testimonies comparison to JW being the good guys, or what?

I am trying to understand why you are bringing this allegory up, because the points you are making seem...well...pointless, and bear no relations to creation and ID, or to God or Designer, or to evolution or science in general.

So why this meaningless or pointless example and comparisons? It doesn’t help your case, and it certainly doesn’t help creationism.

Do you have any real testable evidences to support creation or for Designer if you are ID follower?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Required an intelligent or had one? Required implies that no natural, blind, undirected process could be responsible. Any stone I encounter could be a carved artifact, but I might not recognize it as such. So we can't tell if some things are intelligently designed.
It sounds as though you are saying there must be natural, blind, undirected processes. Why?
How did you arrive at the assumption that there must be?

You do have to examine the object, in order to determine if it is design or not, or do you just assume that it owes its existence to natural, blind, undirected processes?

When we come across an artifact, we may not be able to tell if it is man's design or not, but that doesn't deter persons from trying to figure it out - i.e. is is just a piece of metal that formed by natural processes, or is it man made?

A rock compared to a living cell, is such a huge contrast. In the same way a piece of metal is vastly different to a quantum computer.
So we can tell if some things are intelligently designed.


I'll accept the ID crowds criteria: specified and irreducible complexity are evidence of intelligence.
Do you mean like this?


I was not saying that the testimony should not be investigated. Your complaint seemed to be that there was more trust in the science than in eyewitness testimony.
Since you made application...
I'm saying that circumstantial evidence can be interpreted in various ways. So when evidence is gathered and interpreted, in science, that's not a guarantee that the interpretation is correct.
An eyewitness account is direct evidence, and adds strength to the evidence.


I wouldn't know. If the forensic evidence contradicts eyewitness testimony, go with the science. It is more reliable.
That's sad.
Go with the science - good or bad. It's reliable even if it relies on guesswork, and is wrong.
I don't believe in bad science, so I am sorry, others can hold on to that, maybe it suits their desires. If it is good science, sure.

It's the same with detective work. There is good detective work, and there is bad. I'll take the good - it's fair, justice.
That's what scientists do. They don't force the evidence into a theory and try to make it fit. They follow the evidence where it leads. I'm sure you agree.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
If one assumes that man was made by a god, he has made an unfounded assumption. He may be correct, but to assume that he is is premature without better evidence of that claim.
You keep saying unfounded assumption.
What's an unfounded assumption? A statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn, made without a basis in reason or fact.

Do you mean like these?
Age of the Earth - Wikipedia
In 1862, the physicist William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin published calculations that fixed the age of Earth at between 20 million and 400 million years. He assumed that Earth had formed as a completely molten object, and determined the amount of time it would take for the near-surface to cool to its present temperature. His calculations did not account for heat produced via radioactive decay (a process then unknown to science) or, more significantly, convection inside the Earth, which allows more heat to escape from the interior to warm rocks near the surface

In a lecture in 1869, Darwin's great advocate,
Thomas H. Huxley, attacked Thomson's calculations, suggesting they appeared precise in themselves but were based on faulty assumptions.

The physicist
Hermann von Helmholtz (in 1856) and astronomer Simon Newcomb (in 1892) contributed their own calculations of 22 and 18 million years respectively to the debate: they independently calculated the amount of time it would take for the Sun to condense down to its current diameter and brightness from the nebula of gas and dust from which it was born. Their values were consistent with Thomson's calculations. However, they assumed that the Sun was only glowing from the heat of its gravitational contraction. The process of solar nuclear fusion was not yet known to science.

In 1895 John Perry challenged Kelvin's figure on the basis of his assumptions on conductivity, and Oliver Heaviside entered the dialogue, considering it "a vehicle to display the ability of his operator method to solve problems of astonishing complexity."

The discovery of radioactivity introduced another factor in the calculation. After Henri Becquerel's initial discovery in 1896, Marie and Pierre Curie discovered the radioactive elements polonium and radium in 1898; and in 1903, Pierre Curie and Albert Laborde announced that radium produces enough heat to melt its own weight in ice in less than an hour.
Geologists quickly realized that this upset the assumptions underlying most calculations of the age of Earth. These had assumed that the original heat of the Earth and Sun had dissipated steadily into space, but radioactive decay meant that this heat had been continually replenished. George Darwin and John Joly were the first to point this out, in 1903.

Rutherford assumed that the rate of decay of radium as determined by Ramsay and Soddy was accurate, and that helium did not escape from the sample over time. Rutherford's scheme was inaccurate, but it was a useful first step.

Arthur Holmes became interested in radiometric dating and continued to work on it after everyone else had given up. Holmes focused on lead dating, because he regarded the helium method as unpromising. He performed measurements on rock samples and concluded in 1911 that the oldest (a sample from Ceylon) was about 1.6 billion years old.
These calculations were not particularly trustworthy. For example, he assumed that the samples had contained only uranium and no lead when they were formed.




Dark energy - Wikipedia
In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe. Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain the observations since the 1990s indicating that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

Assuming that the standard model of cosmology is correct, the best current measurements indicate that dark energy contributes 68% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe.

Dark matter - Wikipedia
Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that is thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe, and about a quarter of its total energy density.

Alternative hypotheses

Because dark matter remains to be conclusively identified, many other hypotheses have emerged aiming to explain the observational phenomena that dark matter was conceived to explain. The most common method is to modify general relativity. General relativity is well-tested on solar system scales, but its validity on galactic or cosmological scales has not been well proven. A suitable modification to general relativity can conceivably eliminate the need for dark matter.

Oort cloud - Wikipedia
The Oort cloud is a theoretical cloud of predominantly icy planetesimals proposed to surround the Sun at distances ranging from 2,000 to 200,000 AU (0.0 to 3.2 ly).
....

Astronomers conjecture that the matter composing the Oort cloud formed closer to the Sun and was scattered far into space by the gravitational effects of the giant planets early in the Solar System's evolution. Although no confirmed direct observations of the Oort cloud have been made, it may be the source of all long-period and Halley-type comets entering the inner Solar System, and many of the centaurs and Jupiter-family comets as well.

The existence of the Oort cloud was first
postulated by Estonian astronomer Ernst Öpik in 1932.


propose - put forward (an idea or plan) for consideration or discussion by others.
conjecture - an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
postulate - suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

Oh dear me.
So we go with the science, yes? Bad or good. I'm not knocking science, so please don't get me wrong. What I am seeking to argue, is that you are making science out to be what it's not - a god. Yet there are so many of these modern day scientific myths out there, one can find.

When science involves, according to you, unfounded assumptions, (I call them, simply assumptions), there is no good reason one has for accepting them as the truth, because they are not demonstrated to be.
Even if one believe them to be true, that's entirely up to them, but to tell me that they have truth.. and I don't. You don't have anything better than I do.
You don't believe in throwing your hands in the air, and saying you don't know, I think it's fair you don't deny others the same privilege.

For example, through science, they know things like these.
See this post please.

Please provide an example where a religion corrected its mistake without having first been shown to be in error by science.



No, I am quite competent at discussing religion.



Religious people use faith, a method that almost no chance at arriving at truth. Once you introduce an idea believed to be fact by faith, you have left sound reason behind.
Well, I will tell you this, I am no YEC, as I said before, so science did not adjust my religious views.
JWs religious views are actually responsible for science moving toward a better approach to health care, and you are also wrong about faith where JWs are concerned.
If you were actually competent at discussing all religions, you would not be asking me, you would be telling me - since you know my religion, but you can't.
I'm sure you would have a similar problem with others, because there are thousands with different beliefs, and you don't know many of them.

You can always prove me wrong. Do you care to try?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Do you have anything to add to the discussion (if so I've missed it) or was this just a personal attack on Skwim?
Ha ha! Love it!
Somebody posts up a really inappropriate and critical review of JW's educational standards, etc etc..... and you don't mention that, just my answer which I warmed to in the writing.

What you missed was my mention of the fact that JWs where I live tend to focus towards Trades which give them good employment at fair rates for life, also allowing them to self-employ which offers more flexibility for their particular lifestyles. And they get high customer feedbacks for a greater customer base.

I don't expect too many members to list their qualifications and present jobs, but since the JWs got put under a microscope on this aspect in an evolution/creation thread ( :facepalm: ) I think it's pertinent to inquire of the OP.

Now, how can I help you personally? :)
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
What does any of this to do with JW’s position on evolution?

Are you making police investigation, forensic methodology and legal proceeding and witness and suspect testimonies comparison to JW being the good guys, or what?

I am trying to understand why you are bringing this allegory up, because the points you are making seem...well...pointless, and bear no relations to creation and ID, or to God or Designer, or to evolution or science in general.

So why this meaningless or pointless example and comparisons? It doesn’t help your case, and it certainly doesn’t help creationism.

Do you have any real testable evidences to support creation or for Designer if you are ID follower?
Sorry gnostic, apparently you missed a few post, that's probably the reason you don't understand.
However, I have repeated my methods many many times, and I don't want to keep repeating to everyone who asks. That's the reason I created the thread "Evidence God Is", so you will have to look through my posts there, and if you go through a few on this thread, they should answer your questions.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
How do you know it was the blood transfusion that saved your life, may I ask?
For example,
Some have been given a blood transfusion and died.
Some have refused a blood transfusion ad lived.
:shrug:
.
The above was sent to another....
The member won't actually know whether a blood transfusion was the saviour or not, I'm thinking.
In the UK many thousands of deaths have been caused through blood transfusions. Many thousands of lives have been saved, it's true, but today the use of plasma can often be all that is needed, and it's much safer, I expect.

It's amazing how a thread on evolution can explode in to so many different shards of criticism.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Do you have anything to add to the discussion (if so I've missed it) or was this just a personal attack on Skwim?

For a man who is not a JW and disagrees with many of our beliefs....I think his perspective is refreshingly honest. He is a man who sees through the prejudice and what drives a person to so consistently attack this one group. One can only ask why?

Good on you once again @oldbadger for cutting through the rot and getting to the nitty gritty .
happy0144.gif
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I wouldn't know. If the forensic evidence contradicts eyewitness testimony, go with the science. It is more reliable......

Sadly that's not always the case.
In the UK a research team caught out several well known expert witnesses submitting perjured evidence for rewards, one of these had previously written a training manual on a forensic science application for the Metropolitan Police.

So don't jump for forensic sciences too quickly...... they need to be reviewed very very carefully, as does eye-witness testimony.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
The above was sent to another....
The member won't actually know whether a blood transfusion was the saviour or not, I'm thinking.
Yes. That's what I was kind of thinking too,
Actually, I was also thinking about the skill of the doctor, which I would think is an important factor, and I won't mention the others.

In the UK many thousands of deaths have been caused through blood transfusions. Many thousands of lives have been saved, it's true, but today the use of plasma can often be all that is needed, and it's much safer, I expect.

It's amazing how a thread on evolution can explode in to so many different shards of criticism.
Remember the apostle John said, "Do not be amazed." 1 John 3:13
;)
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
For a man who is not a JW and disagrees with many of our beliefs....I think his perspective is refreshingly honest. He is a man who sees through the prejudice and what drives a person to so consistently attack this one group. One can only ask why?

Good on you once again @oldbadger for cutting through the rot and getting to the nitty gritty .
happy0144.gif

Hello Deeje.
I just get needled when a person trashes the educational standards of a whole religion in one country, quite possibly from statistics gathered from uncertain sources.

Such a person should be expected to provide a review of their own education history and qualifications and explain what job they hold at present. The qualification fashion is proving to be bull-dust here as we find that many degrees cannot lead to rewarding jobs and careers, leaving the ex-students in tens of thousands of pounds debt which can never be repayed.

Many of our Universities are foundering in financial debts whilst they pay ENORMOUS salaries to favoured staff members. It's just another money-go-round of nonsense.

The JWs I know around here will work for ever, because they have trades which they can fulfill perfectly well, with large customer bases. This gives them self-employment leading to freedom which enables them (for example) to go over to Chelmsford to help build the new and huge JW centre there, using, of course, those skills which with which they earn their livings.

Any their beliefs about Genesis are their faith and opinions.

Although you would not be able to share my personal interests on that, I have become more interested in the possibility of visiting life from afar having been involved in human genetical engineering, which could put both atheists and theists all on the back-foot together..... :D We have already found planets which might hold life circulating other stars. Wow!
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
Ha ha! Love it!

Good. I have accomplished something at least!

Somebody posts up a really inappropriate and critical review of JW's educational standards, etc etc..... and you don't mention that, just my answer which I warmed to in the writing.
He posted some statistics and commented on them. He didn't single out one person and attack them.

What you missed was my mention of the fact that JWs where I live tend to focus towards Trades which give them good employment at fair rates for life, also allowing them to self-employ which offers more flexibility for their particular lifestyles. And they get high customer feedbacks for a greater customer base.

Didn't miss it... didn't think it was relevant to the discussion. Any evidence they get high customer feedback? I'm not sure how that would be determined. Of all the trades people I've dealt with I can only think of one who mentioned his religious affiliation and he told me he was a non-denominational Christian.

I don't expect too many members to list their qualifications and present jobs, but since the JWs got put under a microscope on this aspect in an evolution/creation thread ( :facepalm: ) I think it's pertinent to inquire of the OP.
Happy to list mine. Left school as soon as legally allowed (15 years and 9months), worked on the family dairy for a while, then got a job at the milk factory as a 2nd class machinist which led to an apprenticeship as a fitter and turner, then I became a train driver when the milk factory closed down and am now retired.

Now, how can I help you personally? :)

Explain your motives for attacking Skwim.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
The above was sent to another....
The member won't actually know whether a blood transfusion was the saviour or not, I'm thinking.

Your thinking is wrong. I would not have been able to have a stem cell transplant without a blood transfusion. Without the SCT I'd be long dead from lymphoma.

In the UK many thousands of deaths have been caused through blood transfusions.

According to who?

Many thousands of lives have been saved, it's true, but today the use of plasma can often be all that is needed, and it's much safer, I expect.

I think I'll continue to rely on the advice of doctors if told I need a blood transfusion and not your expectations.

It's amazing how a thread on evolution can explode in to so many different shards of criticism.

It's a conversation, conversations tend to branch out. Not really that amazing.
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It sounds as though you are saying there must be natural, blind, undirected processes.

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that there is no reason at this time to believe otherwise..

An eyewitness account is direct evidence, and adds strength to the evidence.

Only when it is consistent with the forensic evidence.

It's reliable even if it relies on guesswork

What guesswork?

What's an unfounded assumption?

An insufficiently supported assumption.

If you were actually competent at discussing all religions, you would not be asking me, you would be telling me - since you know my religion, but you can't.

All religions? Weren't we discussing yours?

OK, if you prefer, I'll tell you, not ask you. For me, Christianity is false religion, and its god doesn't exist. It is logically impossible for such a god to exist - both perfect and making errors it regrets at the same time, for example - and the Christian Bible is overflowing with its ambiguity, internal contradictions, failed prophecies, unkept promises, and errors in science and history.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
For me, Christianity is false religion, and its god doesn't exist. It is logically impossible for such a god to exist - both perfect and making errors it regrets at the same time, for example - and the Christian Bible is overflowing with its ambiguity, internal contradictions, failed prophecies, unkept promises, and errors in science and history.

Since you've broadened the perspective to "Christianity" and its god.....are you sure who that god is, seeing as how there are literally thousands of churches all claiming to be "Christian"? Are all of these worshipping the sane God that Jesus did? I think not, so what god is it that they are giving worship to?

How can you see anything but ambiguity and internal contradictions if all these churches are teaching different things? Its all about interpretation...isn't it?

The failed prophesies.....what are these and have they failed, or is it just that they haven't happened yet?

What unkept promises are you alluding to?

What errors in science and history are there.....please provide the answers to these accusations as I am sure there are people wondering.....and you have obviously found the answers to post so confidently. Please share.....
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
Since you've broadened the perspective to "Christianity" and its god.....are you sure who that god is, seeing as how there are literally thousands of churches all claiming to be "Christian"? Are all of these worshipping the sane God that Jesus did? I think not, so what god is it that they are giving worship to?

Interesting. Which Christian Churches are not worshipping the same God as Jesus did?

I wonder if OldBadger will come rushing to their rescue... hmmm
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
He posted some statistics and commented on them. He didn't single out one person and attack them.
The Opening Post trashed the educational standards of a whole religion. Do that to any group here and one can expect to receive some kind of 'blow-back' .... :p

Didn't miss it... didn't think it was relevant to the discussion.
Oh dear....... once an OP has trashed educational standards in a mass of folks, it's perfectly reasonable to address those comments. You are a reasonable person, yes?

Any evidence they get high customer feedback? I'm not sure how that would be determined. Of all the trades people I've dealt with I can only think of one who mentioned his religious affiliation and he told me he was a non-denominational Christian.
And now you question the truth of what I have written. :facepalm:
But I like you! You make me laugh.......
The man at Number 2 had his house re-roofed by a JW team. When he reached 70yrs he stopped driving and sold his VW Polo to a car-trader who is JW.
A JW electrician has worked at many homes in my street..... when I lived at Number 4 a JW bricklayer built a special arch for me, because I couldn't find anybody else to do that kind of work. it goes on..... and these tradesmen are honest, friendly and don't wear their faith on their sleeves. I live in a town where there are so many JWs that they have to split their congregation in half so that they can all attend meetings.

I don't know where you live, but you need to communicate more with your neighbours..... must be a miserable area or something.... :p

. Of all the trades people I've dealt with I can only think of one who mentioned his religious affiliation and he told me he was a non-denominational Christian.
Well bully for you. I expect that they would keep quiet about their faith if they knew about your opinions...!! :D

Happy to list mine. Left school as soon as legally allowed (15 years and 9months), worked on the family dairy for a while, then got a job at the milk factory as a 2nd class machinist which led to an apprenticeship as a fitter and turner, then I became a train driver when the milk factory closed down and am now retired.
Well don't tell the degree-collectors around here, 'cos you could get marked as something less than educated..... why.... just read the Opening Post!

Explain your motives for attacking Skwim.
When somebody opens a DISCUSSION about one subject by making what think are inappropriate comments about various group's educational achievements, making it seem to me as if they are being made to look like nit-wits, it makes me happy to gainsay it.

Look...... you've posted another to me after this post, but the thing is, you've questioned my personal honesty, mate, requiring evidence for a claim I made based upon my experiences in my home town....... that made me the source.

Now don't expect me to bother with you again. OK? :shrug:
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Do you mean like these?
Age of the Earth - Wikipedia
In 1862, the physicist William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin published calculations that fixed the age of Earth at between 20 million and 400 million years. He assumed that Earth had formed as a completely molten object, and determined the amount of time it would take for the near-surface to cool to its present temperature. His calculations did not account for heat produced via radioactive decay (a process then unknown to science) or, more significantly, convection inside the Earth, which allows more heat to escape from the interior to warm rocks near the surface

In a lecture in 1869, Darwin's great advocate,
Thomas H. Huxley, attacked Thomson's calculations, suggesting they appeared precise in themselves but were based on faulty assumptions.

The physicist
Hermann von Helmholtz (in 1856) and astronomer Simon Newcomb (in 1892) contributed their own calculations of 22 and 18 million years respectively to the debate: they independently calculated the amount of time it would take for the Sun to condense down to its current diameter and brightness from the nebula of gas and dust from which it was born. Their values were consistent with Thomson's calculations. However, they assumed that the Sun was only glowing from the heat of its gravitational contraction. The process of solar nuclear fusion was not yet known to science.

In 1895 John Perry challenged Kelvin's figure on the basis of his assumptions on conductivity, and Oliver Heaviside entered the dialogue, considering it "a vehicle to display the ability of his operator method to solve problems of astonishing complexity."

The discovery of radioactivity introduced another factor in the calculation. After Henri Becquerel's initial discovery in 1896, Marie and Pierre Curie discovered the radioactive elements polonium and radium in 1898; and in 1903, Pierre Curie and Albert Laborde announced that radium produces enough heat to melt its own weight in ice in less than an hour.
Geologists quickly realized that this upset the assumptions underlying most calculations of the age of Earth. These had assumed that the original heat of the Earth and Sun had dissipated steadily into space, but radioactive decay meant that this heat had been continually replenished. George Darwin and John Joly were the first to point this out, in 1903.

Rutherford assumed that the rate of decay of radium as determined by Ramsay and Soddy was accurate, and that helium did not escape from the sample over time. Rutherford's scheme was inaccurate, but it was a useful first step.

Arthur Holmes became interested in radiometric dating and continued to work on it after everyone else had given up. Holmes focused on lead dating, because he regarded the helium method as unpromising. He performed measurements on rock samples and concluded in 1911 that the oldest (a sample from Ceylon) was about 1.6 billion years old.
These calculations were not particularly trustworthy. For example, he assumed that the samples had contained only uranium and no lead when they were formed.

I don't understand your point in posting the above. The only thing you have shown is that science is self-correcting. Over time, as better and better measuring devices are made, we get closer to the truth.


Dark energy - Wikipedia
Dark matter - Wikipedia
Alternative hypotheses
Oort cloud - Wikipedia

Again, I don't see your point other than to show that science advances man's knowledge. There is a big difference in what we knew of the age of the earth between 1862 and 2018. There is every reason to suppose that over the next 150 years we will have a much better understanding of what we now call Dark energy and Dark matter.



... is that you are making science out to be what it's not - a god.

Nonsense. The only people who make those kinds of arguments are theists- strawmen that they can merrily shoot down. Science is not at all godlike.


Well, I will tell you this, I am no YEC, as I said before, so science did not adjust my religious views.

If you are not a YEC, how old do you believe the earth to be? On what do you base that belief?


You can always prove me wrong. Do you care to try?

Prove you wrong about what?
Your own words prove you don't understand science.
Your own words prove you cannot accept science where it disagrees with your ingrained religious beliefs.
Your own words prove you must denigrate science where it disagrees with your ingrained religious beliefs.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
What unkept promises are you alluding to?
Watch Tower Society unfulfilled predictions - Wikipedia

...awaiting its collective escape from earth to waiting for the impending destruction of the present world order in the Battle of Armageddon.
1878: End of the harvest
1881: A revised end of the harvest

1914: The end of human rulership
1925: Resurrection of the patriarchs


1975: The worldwide jubilee[edit]





Aftermath[edit]
The passing of 1975 without incident left the Watch Tower Society open to new claims of prophetic failure. Instead of maintaining the prophetic significance of that year, however, the group's leaders embarked on a lengthy period of denial and purge, blaming rank and file membership for misreading the organization's interpretations.
 
Top