Dinosaur Shocker (YEC say dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years)

Smithsonian Magazine ^ | May 1, 2006 | Helen Fields

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Sometimes I'm not sure where I fit in with these threads. I think that evolution may very well be a part of God's creation. If so, I think that it's probably designed to follow a pattern of God's making, which is somewhat like ID. I don't think ID should be taught as science, however, since it doesn't meet the testing criteria. I think God is powerful enough to have created the universe by any means he saw fit, so I suppose I don't conclusively rule out other interpretations of creation either. I do have have a view that I'm leaning toward, which is the one we are discussing. I have come to this view through several courses of study. The first, is the Bible. This particular verse stands out to me.

Romans 1:20 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

I find "invisible qualities" to be very curious! If nature is God's creation, and also the mechanism he used to bring about His creation, then why should we expect to find Him working apart from it. Could He work apart from it? Yes! Did He work apart from it? Don't know. From the evidence,it doesn't look like it. Did He guide it? I believe so, but that it a matter of Faith. The more I study, the more humbled I am at how powerful God is. I simply think that there is much about Him , and His perspective, that we cannot understand. Therefore, I am hesitant to push my interpretation of Genesis, or anyone else's as absolute. I think the fear, among some Christians, is that if Genesis is not taken literally, then Christians will use it as an excuse to bend other scripture to their liking. I can understand their point. However, on the matter of salvation, which I believe to be the purpose of the Bible, we have much more direction, and clarification. I do wish to support my fellow Christians in their belief of God as our Creator, and I always enjoy reading scripture that is intended for encouragement, and insight. I don't wish to denigrate any of them, even though my view may differ from some of theirs.

I don't think Genesis is a detailed account for several reasons.

First, the details of Creation were not meant to be the focus of the Bible. This doesn't mean I think God lied, in the Genesis account. I don't believe that is consistent with God. I think He left out involved details for the reason I just mentioned.

Second, for me to accept Genesis as a detailed account, I must either believe that a) God created the Earth to look old and science to corroborate that. This, to me, seems kind of tricky. I don't find this to be consistent with God's character either. b) Fossils, nature, and the means by which we study it were created by satan to deceive us. I don't believe that either. We are dealing with the study of nature,which is God's creation, not satan's. or c) There is a vast conspiracy amongst the scientific community to cover up proof of God's existence. For this, I simply ask, Why? What motivation would there be to do such a thing?

My personal view is that Genesis is an outline of creation, written for a common understanding. You said something very interesting in your post.
( an account written by/for men who had little knowledge of their immediate world, and no capacity for comprehension of things on a molecular/atomic level;)
I have thought that very thing. Something that stood out to me in Genesis is the phrase, "the earth produced life". It is phrased this way in regards to plant, and animals. There is of course the phrase, "created from the dust of the earth." If creation was revealed to Moses in a vision, or dream, it may very well have had the appearance of being produced from the earth.

[Coyoteman]

1,154 is more in your area.

And a quick reading shows why one should never rely on creationist websites for accuracy when evolution is concerned.

I will try to give this some further attention this evening, but work calls...

[Conservative Texan Mom]

It's cute.
Well, this is funny! We have lots of animals because we live on a ranch. My kids are fairly familiar with reproduction since they witness so much of it. The first time our dog went into season, my littlest was only 5. It was a bit much to explain, so, to make it simple, I just said, "that's how dogs marry." There was a frustrated German Shepperd, named Rocky, hanging around. He couldn't get into the fenced area where our dog was. A little Chiquaqua had learned how to climb fences, and thus became the alpha male. This poor German Shepperd just watched from behind fence in envy I guess. One day my daughter was moping about being bored. So, I said, "Why don't you go outside?" She replied, "I can't! Every time I go outside Rocky tries to marry my leg!" LOL!

[BrandtMichaels]

How do you feel about laziness? I mentioned the website in all but 1 of my recent posts, and I won't be a bit surprised when most of the evolutionists here tear it apart - with half truths, circular (more like pretzel) logic, and innuendo.

[ahayes]

How do you feel about laziness? It's not inconceivable that you might switch sources, and it is proper to give the source every time you cite something.

I'm afraid it is rather easy to rip apart as it is all half-truths, circular logic, and innuendo. :-( I've pointed this out in my replies already.

[King Prout]

to "answer a challenge" is to rise to a challenge to provide whatever item, innovation, example, or solution the terms of the challenge demand.

so, in this case, the "answer" you would put forth would be one which you believe meets the challenge to name a situation or example in which morality-linked definition of right, as limited in the given, is NOT made by might, as defined in the given. It is satisfactory to demonstrate how the terms of the given are incorrect, thus falsifying the terms of the challenge, if you can do so.

note: "assert" does not equate to *demonstrate*

surely you know how a dialectic works?

[AndrewC]

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Neptune has no life.

Why does requiring a contention to be backed with evidence make me a would-be mind reader?

It doesn't. But speaking for Tom hints at the use of a crystal ball.

[AndrewC]

Are you suggesting that all science is fraudulent because one person here and there falsified data (and were subsequently caught and/or ratted out by other scientists)?

No.

Your contention is ridiculous, and quite frankly, insulting;

So? Feel insulted.

[King Prout]

for it to be a GOOD joke, y'd have to toss in a rabid YECer

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Why does requiring a contention to be backed with evidence make me a would-be mind reader?" (me)

---

"It doesn't"

Then why did you say it did?

"But speaking for Tom hints at the use of a crystal ball."

Or maybe it means I know a little bit about what Scientology claims?

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"A molecular biologist, a geneticist, an organic chemist, and Kent Hovind are in a bar..."

That one has more promise. :)

[AndrewC]

Then why did you say it did?

Because you were speaking for Tom

"But speaking for Tom hints at the use of a crystal ball."

You keep repeating your desire for evidence for my contention. I keep repeating, I'm not going to give you any. It is my contention. You are not required to accept it, just as I am not required to provide you any evidence.

There are no mice on Uranus.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You keep repeating your desire for evidence for my contention. I keep repeating, I'm not going to give you any."

I have given up thinking you will provide any evidence for it, because that would take integrity. I am simply pointing out that there is no more reason to take your contention of a secret conspiracy to suppress alleged evidence against evolution seriously than it is to take seriously Scientology's claims that beings called Thetans have infested the bodies of people and need to be expelled through special scientological rituals.

"You are not required to accept it, just as I am not required to provide you any evidence."

And nobody is required logically to think you are anything but a nutcase like Tom Cruise. :) Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

[Al Simmons]

"Are you afraid to say whether you need Jesus as your Savior?"

Excuse me, Miss Elsie, but I will answer for him: 'Its none of your business'.

And frankly, it is rude to keep pursuing this line with someone who is clearly not interested.'

Now I'll tell you a true story and then offer some unsolicited advice:

When running for President in the primaries in 1976, Ronald Reagan was offered the chance to speak before a Dallas Baptist 'Mega-Church' that any other politician would have KILLED for.

Reagan turned the offer down flat. When his Texas campaign director incredulously asked why, Reagan replied "My relationship with my God is mine and I am not going to abuse it."

You see, Ronald Reagan seldom went to church as President, and did not talk about Jesus all the time like some people tend to do...that led some, (like an unstable, violent, but 'holier-than-though' ex-wife of mine), to claim that "Reagan is not a real Christian".

Well, the man died a couple of years ago, and then it became obvious that Reagan LIVED (not talked) his faith in a way that would make most men this side of Billy Graham hang their heads in shame.

My point? It is this: My own life experience confirms that "the more talk, the less walk."

My unsolicited advice to you my dear is to LIVE your faith instead of rudely TALKING it to people who have no desire to speak with you about it. Then (and only then) might you find some folks coming back to ask further questions....

just my 2 cents worth....

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Excuse me, Miss Elsie..."

Just so you know, Elsie's a guy. I think his name derives from L. C. or something like that.

The rest of your post was spot on. :)

[Al Simmons]

My dear fellow, I find that your posts are the best example that I can think of right now to illustrate the conclusion that, far from inexorably leading to greater and greater complexity and intelligence, evolution works randomly, and often, under the right circumstances, appears to lead a species backwards in those areas...

think about it for a while and I trust you might 'get it'....this is as politely as I can put it to you...

your belief in what you are spewing is on a par with my L.A. cousin's, who swears up and down that "Supply Side" economics is a proven failure, and that cutting taxes lowers Federal revenues...

like him, you seem to be completely allergic both to facts and to a logical analysis of data...therefore, to paraphrase "The Borg", further discussion with you is futile....

[Liberal Classic]

Bully post!

[Al Simmons]

[freedumb2003]

The sum total of your post are some examples of science using the scientific method to adjust details in the mechanics of Evolution and expose frauds.

Science, in its search for physical truth, isn't afraid to expose frauds and revise based on new-found facts.

Show me the same in Creationism, ID or any other religion.

Nothing in your post defeats TToE. Rather, it points out that more details over time are being learned. With the discoveries from the DNA genome, the overall theory is clearly becoming more and more supported by the evidence.

[GourmetDan]

A little quote mining from another list.

"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of
the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly
summarized a common attitude among archaeologists toward it, as
follows:'If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main
text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a
footnote. And if it is completely "out-of-date," we just drop it.'" –
T. Save-Soderbergh and Ingrid U. Olsson, "C-14 Dating and Egyptian
Chronology."

Indeed, most of the radiocarbon results are tossed out:

"It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the
radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in
northeastern North America have been adopted as `acceptable' by
investigators." – J. Ogden III, "The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon."