Fossils are not millions of years old

[Arauna]

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.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

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 :)))). 

[Arauna]

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

[JW Insider]

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?

 

[TrueTomHarley]

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.

[Srecko Sostar]

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.

[Arauna]

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.....

[Arauna]

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. 

 

 

[JOHN BUTLER]

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. 

[TrueTomHarley]

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.

[JW Insider]

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:

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

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

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.

[Arauna]

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....