Jump to content

Arauna

Fossils are not millions of years old

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Arauna -
Arauna -
48
574

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I made tacos last night. I ate 4. My wife ate 4 (usually eats 2), and my sons came over and ate about 8 between them. I make tacos once every two weeks. Soft corn tortillas are very inexpensive, but I also buy a small box of the crispy "Ortega" hard shells. I find that shopping for the ingredients is simple, because I just imagine a taco and the order in which I always put the items on it. Problem is that the store is set up in such a way that I have to buy the ingredients all out of order. I buy a head of lettuce, a small bag of limes, 2 tomatoes, 1 onion, 1 jalapeno pepper, 1 bunch of cilantro, hard tortillas, salsa, hamburger, cheddar cheese, sour cream, soft tortillas. (Other spices and hot sauce etc are aleady in the house.) In my youth, I used to fry the soft tortillas in corn oil, but now I just put a cookie pan in the oven and put a layer of soft tortillas on the bottom and then stand up the hard tortillas on top of them, and another flat layer of soft tortillas on top of the hard ones. This way the crispy ones will back but will be protected from getting too brown on the portion that is nearest the electric elements of the oven. I can start shopping at 5pm and be completely done chopping the ingredients, cooking the hamburger, and baking the tortillas to serve tacos by 5:55.

I find that the leftover lettuce, cilantro, and salsa doesn't stay fresh enough for two weeks so I use it for salads and spaghetti sauce within the next week. Also, if there are any tortillas, cheese, onions, tomatoes, jalapeno, etc., left over I just sprinkle it all onto flat tortillas and bake them into "chips" for dessert, which can last through the next day.

Sunday morning I make scrambled eggs. But mostly, I like tacos.

Dear JW Insider. This is an open provocation to Librarian. You are  1 light year out of topic with tacos recipe :)))))))))

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me - I feel like I am in school if I cannot stray off subject sometimes.  I am not writing a paper....  I am just in a discussion.  The mind always seeks new ideas to explore... So, I am not here to provide people with my research... or to prove something.  I just give them ideas to go and study for themselves. 

I always write from memory... things I have read.... It will take a lot of time to go find the proof  where I read it.

Unfortunately it will be a little harder to study the kind of fossil which loves tacos!  

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Dear JW Insider. This is an open provocation to Librarian. You are  1 light year out of topic with tacos recipe :)))))))))

True. I apologize to @The Librarian. I know that he or she had just broken off this particular topic to a new thread which is a bit of a hassle in itself. I pushed the envelope a bit, but mostly to just highlight how the Librarian was correct. Completely new topics can be frustrating. But to the small group participating in this topic, I think it was understandable that Watchtower doctrine of the seven thousand year day would come into this. That would inevitably lead to why there are changes to our doctrines. That would inevitably lead to a discussion of the spiritual guidance of the GB (because it was already a concurrent discussion among a couple of the participants, here).

On a serious note, I think it would be better to just say that there is a discussion about the GB that includes the topic of spirit direction already in progress, so that this part of the topic can be continued over there.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is good to see that people have a sense of humour and we can indeed thank Jehovah for that. 

I have another topic but must have a cup of coffee first. I'm spending toooo much time on this computer, but it is spiritually upbuilding. 

Have a good day as much as possible. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know one of the counter arguments to the preservation of blood vessels in fossils.   There is a paper which indicates that iron in blood can preserve blood vessels... if I remember correctly.  I looked at the arguments and it was so "scientific".    They took blood and "centrifuged" out the iron and then in perfect laboratory conditions proved that high levels of  iron can preserve these.   The problem is that no-where in nature does one find a centrifuge and no-where in nature does one find  large quantities of blood like that.   It also does not explain the carbon 14 and the other proteins such as collagen.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arauna said:

I know one of the counter arguments to the preservation of blood vessels in fossils.   There is a paper which indicates that iron in blood can preserve blood vessels... if I remember correctly.  I looked at the arguments and it was so "scientific".    They took blood and "centrifuged" out the iron and then in perfect laboratory conditions proved that high levels of  iron can preserve these.   The problem is that no-where in nature does one find a centrifuge and no-where in nature does one find  large quantities of blood like that.   It also does not explain the carbon 14 and the other proteins such as collagen.

 

This nice observation can be use for (from my perspective of looking) WT "scientists" aka bible scholars in general, or GB - FDS as origin, source, in role of those who giving permission for printing (and all other form of distribution) all past, present and future interpretations. 

"C14" is widespread tool, method, also used many times by GB in spiritual dating of various Bible events (607 for example :)))). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No c14 is used in dating artifacts and fossils - not used ito determine 607 BCE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Arauna said:

No c14 is used in dating artifacts and fossils - not used ito determine 607 BCE

Good catch! I noticed that too, but did not want to start a 607 discussion. The Watchtower has accepted C-14 to get within about 100 years for some manuscripts, including the DSS, and to defend a more Biblical date for Hezekiah's tunnel, and also accept the limits of C-14 dating only for things in the last few thousands of years, etc. But it is rarely accepted as the only piece of evidence on which to draw a conclusion:

*** w13 2/1 p. 14 What Is the “Gospel of Judas”? ***

  • Carbon-14 dating authenticated the codex as likely coming from the third or the fourth century C.E. However, the scholars surmised that the Coptic text of the “Gospel of Judas” had been translated from its original Greek at a much earlier period. What was that original period and setting in which the “Gospel of Judas” was composed?

*** w59 4/15 p. 243 Christianity’s Origin and the Dead Sea Scrolls ***

  • Not without good reason these scrolls have been described as the “greatest manuscript discovery of modern times.” They have been definitely dated as of the second century B.C. by experts in the fields of archaeology, paleography (the science of deciphering ancient writing) and the carbon-14 process. Previously the oldest-known Hebrew witness to God’s Word had been the Nash papyrus  . . . .

*** w09 5/1 p. 27 Did You Know? ***

  • Dr. Amos Frumkin of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem says: “The carbon-14 tests we carried out on organic material within the plaster of the Siloam Tunnel, and uranium-thorium dating of stalactites found in the tunnel, date it conclusively to Hezekiah’s era.” An article in the scientific journal Nature adds: “The three independent lines of evidence—radiometric dating, palaeography and the historical record—all converge on about 700 BC, rendering the Siloam Tunnel the best-dated Iron-Age biblical structure thus far known.”

*** w97 6/15 p. 10 Jerusalem in Bible Times—What Does Archaeology Reveal? ***

  • Did they exist in David’s time? Was this the water tunnel used by Joab? Dan Gill answers: “To test whether Warren’s Shaft was in fact a natural sinkhole, we analyzed a fragment of calcareous crust from its irregular walls for carbon-14. It contained none, indicating that the crust is more than 40,000 years old: This provides unequivocal evidence that the shaft could not have been dug by man.”

The WTS general position on carbon dating is still described here:

*** g86 9/22 p. 21 The Radiocarbon Clock ***

  • The Radiocarbon Clock

There was also a discussion started here:

Can we trust carbon 14 dating?

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Librarian said:

How can @Srecko Sostar and @JOHN BUTLER learn to stay on topic?

This ability evolved into being during the Glycolcemic Age and they might have missed it. All evolved creatures are equal but some are more equal than others.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear JW Insider and Arauna!

I would like to  turn your attention on literal graphic of my letters  "C14" is widespread tool, method, also used many times by GB in spiritual dating of various Bible events (607 for example :)))). 

"C14" here (is sort of parable, symbolic meaning) have meaning of how methods for age determination with Carbon 14, some people considered as unreliable and inadequate or insufficient for longer periods of time. 

When connected  "C14" with GB, I mean on that part of spiritual methods and instruments in hand of GB who try to determine, reveal, explain things and concepts in Bible. And how GB using "tools" of all kind, but such instruments and methods they using are not provide All Time Truth, but repeating mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

When connected  "C14" with GB, I mean on that part of spiritual methods and instruments in hand of GB 

Ha - ha - ha - you are making a joke - right?    If you are not making an- over- the- top absurd -joke - then provide the evidence.... If you do not give the evidence then I do not waste my time to answer you.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 4:26 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

interviewed Michael Behe

I think new Witnesses are afraid to do their own research until they have matured. The rate of maturity is different for everyone.  When one is raising a family and struggling to make ends meet one will not be pottering about everywhere searching for more knowledge - they can scarcely keep up with preparing for meetings and family studies.... and if they are elders - to prepare for their talks.

So in these circumstances it is easier to go to a reliable source where one need not take time to sift through garbage and propaganda to make a balanced decision. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Arauna said:

I think new Witnesses are afraid to do their own research until they have matured. The rate of maturity is different for everyone.  When one is raising a family and struggling to make ends meet one will not be pottering about everywhere searching for more knowledge - they can scarcely keep up with preparing for meetings and family studies.... and if they are elders - to prepare for their talks.

So in these circumstances it is easier to go to a reliable source where one need not take time to sift through garbage and propaganda to make a balanced decision. 

 

 

Depends what exactly you mean by a reliable source.

Only God's word is a reliable source, and then only if translated properly. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Arauna said:

When one is raising a family and struggling to make ends meet one will not be pottering about everywhere searching for more knowledge - they can scarcely keep up with preparing fo

I think this is why the delivering quality of “critical thinking” is overrated. Mob mentality takes over in most disciplines & those vested emotionally and/or financially seek to run the competition off the road. The average person has not the time, patience, or often interest to investigate. 

Sometimes those in dominance deliberately muddy the waters so that preoccupied ones will throw up their hands and say: ‘Oh, to hell with it! They”re all liars anyway.’

Many things ‘settled’ have been settled by decree. Many things ‘proved’ have been proved by ignoring evidence to the contrary.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 3:34 AM, Arauna said:

The bone structure of the dinosaurs fall in two categories.  Those of birds and those of reptiles.  It has never bothered me that dinosaurs with hollow bones like birds may have had feathers and would have been beautifully colorful.

I agree that it should not bother us that dinosaurs may have had hollow bones like birds and may have had feathers, and may have even been beautifully colorful.

But it can be misleading to claim that the bone structure of dinosaurs falls into two categories: birds and reptiles. Dinosaurs themselves are categorized into "bird" and "non-bird" dinosaurs, but not their bone structures. In fact, the bone structures of the most reptilian theropods have three birdlike toes/claws and hollow bones, and many of them show evidence of feathers, even though they did not fly. The Tyrannasaurus Rex was a theropod.

Wikipedia shows the following theropod, stating that it has three toes and hollow bones:

image.png

And here is the Anchiornis, also a theropod, with the skeletal structure of other theropods, but with feathers:

image.png

Here is the approximate bone structure of the Anchiornis. It could not fly, just as many species of birds cannot fly.

image.png

Of course, even if this idea of feathers on dinosaurs doesn't bother us, it sure bothered researchers at Bethel. This is because claims were made that created a kind of logic trap. If you look up feathers and dinosaurs in the Watchtower Library you will find this one reference:

*** g 7/07 p. 24 Feathers—A Marvel of Design ***

  • FORGED “EVIDENCE”  Some fossil “evidence” that was once loudly hailed as proof that birds evolved from other creatures has since been shown to have been forged. In 1999, for instance, National Geographic magazine featured an article about a fossil of a feathered creature with a tail like a dinosaur’s. The magazine declared the creature to be “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” The fossil, however, turned out to be a forgery, a composite of the fossils of two different animals. In fact, no such “missing link” has ever been found.

Clearly, the Awake! wasn't ready for a feathered dinosaur. (The forgery was created in China, where true feathered dinosaur fossils would soon be discovered and studied. It was unveiled by National Geographic in October/November 1999, and NG announced the investigation into the probability that it was a forgery about 4 months later, and took until October 2000, a year later, to publish the results of the investigation, with an apology.)

The same article also said:

  • Feathers give no indication that they ever needed improvement. In fact, the “earliest known fossil feather is so modern-looking as to be indistinguishable from the feathers of birds flying today.” Yet, evolutionary theory teaches that feathers must be the result of gradual, cumulative change in earlier skin outgrowths. Moreover, “feathers could not have evolved without some plausible adaptive value in all of the intermediate steps,” says the Manual.
  • Further, if feathers developed progressively over a long period of time, the fossil record should contain intermediate forms. But none have ever been found, only traces of fully formed feathers. “Unfortunately for evolutionary theory, feathers are very complicated,” states the Manual.

  • The perfection of feathers is just one problem for evolutionists, for practically every part of a bird is designed for flight. For instance, a bird has light, hollow bones . . .

  • The fossil feather is from archaeopteryx, an extinct creature sometimes presented as a “missing link” in the line of descent to modern birds. Most paleontologists, however, no longer consider it an ancestor of modern birds.

Of course, contrary to the above claim, most paleontologists do consider the "bird-dinosaurs" to be an ancestor of modern birds. Those necessarily lighter, hollow bones have also been verified throughout many dinosaur species, and now even the evidence of only partially formed feathers has been seen, which the Awake! magazine had called "intermediate forms" and suggested that such a find, if it ever happened, would indicate evidence of evolutionary theory.

It would have been better to just accept that there might be hundreds of new discoveries indicating a variety of life created for purposes we cannot yet understand.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

FORGED “EVIDENCE”  Some fossil “evidence” that was once loudly hailed as proof that birds evolved from other creatures has since been shown to have been forged. In 1999, for instance, National Geographic magazine featured an article about a fossil of a feathered creature with a tail like a dinosaur’s. The magazine declared the creature to be “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” The fossil, however, turned out to be a forgery, a composite of the fossils of two different animals. In fact, no such “missing link” has ever been found. 

There are no life forms in the evolutionary record which proves step by step development of feathers or flight etc. Cambrian explosion proves that. 

Fortunately nano-biotechnology has also proved the evolutionary theory to be a simplistic view of all life.  Life is irreducibly complex and "connected"  .  With the word "connected" I  mean this: the eye cannot see without the brain to interpret and why would that part of the brain to interpret develop if there were no eye.  There is "foresight" in the development of both organs at the same time ....  This proves design and intelligence.  So everything is connected in the body. One does not need a biology degree to understand this.

The evolutionists were winning the propaganda war  a few years back - in schools and everywhere.  It is pushed by the UN too - the 2030 agenda wants all children to accept the new morality and reject religion (Christianity).  This is why we find pictures of "proven evolutionary frauds" still presented in school books as fact - current text books.  

Fortunately there is much more evidence available now to disprove the horrible book of Dawkins and other high priests of evolution. Dawkins turned so many people away from the bible....  but I am sad to say he no longer debates any Christians.  He just goes on university forums where he an fellow evolutionists discuss the "plausible" side of evolution to his eager fans.  I have seen a few debates where he bit the dust against people who are not even biologists.  These philosophers managed to show him the logic and interconnectedness or morality with the god of the bible. 

Thanks for your input.  I hope I did not create a "careless" impression by my choice of words.  I am never surprised at the wonderful diversity and abundance Jehovah has created.  Some dinosaurs could have been ground browsers like chickens, and others could have been water birds.  Some could have been carrion eaters etc.

I think - personal opinion - when one is right in the center of the group which needs to research and write about these things it can get a little distorted and panicky.  

I am not surprised - when the above "evidence" of bird evolution was presented without knowing it was a fraud..... they must have been consternated, flabbergasted  and concerned - no matter how strong the faith....to present their readers with a logic answer.  How do you counteract this kind of evidence?  There is no logic to counteract it.  One has to wait until the truth about this "evidence" comes out.  It is always easier with hindsight to realize one should have waited  - not when you are in a difficult situation.   Trust in Jehovah is important and even anointed people can lack this at times.  They are after all only people....prone to panic and prone to feel the heavy responsibility put on them.   The older you are the more difficult too!

 To give guidance to many people is a large responsibility and when one is confronted with lies - not knowing it is a lie - can be difficult.  This is why Jehovah says we must grow to maturity and in devotion but this only grows with experience ..... and time.  Jehovah knows we are dust.... 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not understand your position Arauna. You using so called "scientific" names, words, evidences .... but have big doubts about science and scientists. Well, why you talking about Cambrian period when you in your title put clear statement that send your strong belief how millions of years about fossils (and not only about fossils but all other things about Earth and Universe) is something impossible because Bible not support such view.    

6 hours ago, Arauna said:

Cambrian

Previous you said, quote:  "It is a totally unscientific statement and even if you say you are a scientist 1000 times, it does not make you a scientist..."  and   "There are many kinds of scientists"

 

Cambrian Period, earliest time division of the Paleozoic Era, extending from 541 million to 485.4 million years ago. The Cambrian Period is divided into four stratigraphic series: the Terreneuvian Series (541 million to 521 million years ago), Series 2 (521 million to 509 million years ago), Series 3 (509 million to 497 million years ago), and the Furongian Series (497 million to 485.4 million years ago).

https://www.britannica.com/science/Cambrian-Period

You give us impression you don't accept how fossils are millions of years old but you say this: There are no life forms in the evolutionary record which proves step by step development of feathers or flight etc. Cambrian explosion proves that. 

Many JW still believe in 7000 year period of Creative days. Here, you want to prove how Evolution is impossible because Cambrian explosion of life proves opposite. But in same time forget how Cambrian period last (happened - edited),  few hundreds millions years, according to scientists. Well, 7000 years against millions of Cambrian years. What would you chose in fact, what you want to chose today? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Thanks for your input.  I hope I did not create a "careless" impression by my choice of words.  I am never surprised at the wonderful diversity and abundance Jehovah has created.

To me, you do not give the impression of being careless at all. I get the impression you have not only been careful but very thorough in looking for evidence defending creation. And not just from a single source but clearly by being selective among some of the best ideas from many sources, which also means rejecting bad ideas.

I think this is great!

What I did hope to convey was the difficulty we have in simply re-interpreting every bit of existing evidence into a simple version of creation. All of us tend to do this because most of us want simple answers. A good scientist should look at ALL the evidence related to her or his branch of science and continue to readjust an overarching theory that fits every bit of it, including all the anomalies. We can't really make a good counter-claim in defense of our own position until we have done the same. As TTH above has said:

10 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Many things ‘settled’ have been settled by decree. Many things ‘proved’ have been proved by ignoring evidence to the contrary.

More importantly, we can't "judge" the conclusions of individual scientists, if they are based on a cache of thousands of pieces of evidence that we have not ourselves been able to explain.  As TTH aleady added:

10 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The average person has not the time, patience, or often interest to investigate.  

Creationists have unprovable theories, too. We often invoke the problems of the unknown antediluvian atmosphere to counter evidence from Carbon 14 that appears to measure things fairly well back to 50,000 years. But our counter theory is not proved at all. It's just our own conjecture (actually the conjecture of previous fundamentalists). That the air pressure was different during a time of pterodactyls is also an unprovable theory. That the entire earth was a temperate, tropical climate is also unprovable.

We do have a small piece of evidence in favor of our theory in the Bible, but there are no details provided in the Bible, so some Witnesses and a lot of Fundamentalists simply impose a lot of conjecture upon the "water canopy" theory. 

In fact, the water canopy theory is very weak. From the standpoint of physics, the claims made for it are not even possible. So we are really invoking a kind of "miracle" that held a theorized "band" of water in the sky. Even the evidence from the Bible on the "water canopy" is not definitive. For one thing, you can see from the footnotes in the NWT that the word translated heavens is actually the same word for "sky." Genesis 1:1 is really saying: "In the beginning God created the sky and the earth." And this word for "expanse" in Genesis 1:7 is apparently just a reference to the visible sky that holds the rain clouds above us. We can't really say for sure that this separation of the waters and the waters is any more than just the fact that Jehovah made it possible for water to be both on the surface of the earth and also high above our heads in the form of water vapor in the form of clouds. A reason for saying this is that Proverbs apparently replaces the idea of this water separation, merely with the word for "clouds" when referring to the major milestones of the earth's creation:

  • (Proverbs 8:28) . . .When he established the clouds above, When he founded the fountains of the deep,

And rather than support the theory that this separation of the waters disappeared at the time of the Flood, Psalms says it's still there:

  • (Psalm 148:3-7) . . .Praise him, sun and moon. Praise him, all shining stars.  4 Praise him, O highest heavens And waters above the heavens.  5 Let them praise the name of Jehovah, For he commanded, and they were created.  6 He keeps them established forever and ever; He has issued a decree that will not pass away.  7 Praise Jehovah from the earth, You great sea creatures and all deep waters,

In fact, just like Proverbs referring to these waters as clouds, Psalms (see also Job) also credits these waters from above as the "rain" that continued to make things grow during the days of the Psalmist:

  • (Psalm 104:12-14) . . .Above them roost the birds of the sky [heaven]; They sing among the thick foliage. 13 He is watering the mountains from his upper rooms. With the fruitage of your works the earth is satisfied. 14 He is making grass grow for the cattle And vegetation for mankind’s use, To grow food from the land.
  • (Job 38:36, 37) 36 Who put wisdom within the clouds Or gave understanding to the sky [heaven] phenomenon? 37 Who is wise enough to count the clouds, Or who can tip over the water jars of heaven?
  • (Psalm 147:8) . . .The One who covers the heavens with clouds, The One providing rain for the earth, The One making grass sprout on the mountains.

In fact, based on similar texts and language used in other near eastern ancient documents the idea of this sky/expanse was the vault or dome that held the clouds above, and allowed the stars to shine through at night. Amos, too, shows it had not disappeared, and that it included the process by which sea water was turned into rain water.

  • (Amos 9:6) . . .‘The one who builds his stairs in the heavens And establishes his [dome, vault] over the earth; The one who summons the waters of the sea, To pour them out on the surface of the earth —Jehovah is his name.’
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I laughed out loud when those Jurassic Park Pterodactyls lunged at the children clamboring amidst the ceiling tiles & my kids gave me a dirty look.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Cambrian Period,

I do not agree that their calculations of the time period BUT  I use their own evidence against them.  Do you know why?  The Cambrian explosion stands for the explosion of animals who suddenly appear in the ground fully created.  In the layers of earth before the explosion of this great variety of animals there are no partially formed fossils to prove that they developed over a long period of time and there are no fossils that show the gradual development.  This proves that animals did not evolve over millions of years.   Especially the birds appear ready with wings for flight.  The subject of the calculations of their years is another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




×

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation