Skip to comments.Paleontologists Target Montana Dinosaur Museum
Posted on 11/09/2009 9:18:40 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
the intellectual elite jihadists are foaming at the mouth yet again....
If someone chooses to believe that, it is their own business.
A day with God is as a thousand years (or millions, or billions); we don’t get to set His calendar.
[[Oh really? Try keeping this picture next to your bed.]]
I do! she’s a knockout!!!
I guess there is more than one way to be a knockout!
Out of my head! Out of my head!
True, the geneologies he gave us in his word do that for us. Old Earthers are simply not believers,
Translation: Please don’t confuse me with facts!
I have to agree with him. All of the science points to the fact that there was once an inland sea covering much of North America. I can take anyone in Dallas to see white rock outcroppings that show without a doubt that the sedimentation layers were laid down along a long period of time -- not a single, global flood.
Furthermore, if all of the fossils were laid down in a single flood event, we would expect a uniform mixture of fossils. We don't find that. Instead, we find fossilized species grouped in specific layers -- the same layers that we find all over the world.
Did Noah's flood happen? Absolutely -- the Bible tells us so. Did it cover the entire planet? No. The Bible says that it covered eretz -- a word that can mean anything from a local region to the land of Israel (the most common usage) to the entire planet.
God's revelation to us through his creation is no less truthful than his revelation to us through his word. God's creation overwhelmingly tells us that the flood did not cover the entire planet. Since the Bible does not require the entire planet to be covered by a universal flood, then we should not force an arbitrary meaning to a word in the Bible.
Mary Schweitzer is famous for having proved that some dinosaur fossils from the nearby Hell Creek formation contain soft tissues, including blood cells.
No, dear Brian, Mary found FOSSILIZED soft tissue STRUCTURES, which she then DEMINERALIZED in an EDTA solution. Not one "blood cell" has been found.....but they did find FOSSILIZED blood cells.
Some things, Brian, need no argument to be made against them. Why give credibility to the lunacy that Man walked in the land of vegetarian T. rex?
So which genealogy are you referring to? Note the differences between:
- Matthew 1:6-16 versus Luke 3:21-31.
- Matthew 1:6-16 versus 1 Chronicles 3:10-16.
- Luke 3:21-31 versus 1 Chronicles 3:10-16.
- 17 verses in the New Testament call Jesus "the son of David," yet Jesus and David were separated by approximately 1,000 years.
- Luke 3:8 says, "Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham." How could the Jews of Jesus' day describe themselves as "sons of Abraham" when Abraham lived 1,500 to 2,000 years before Jesus?
If you understand how ancient (and modern) Jews maintain genealogies, then none of what I mentioned above is a problem. Disobedient Jews are often blotted out from genealogies. Also, Jewish genealogies often refer to prominent people and leave out many generations. In a spiritual sense, the Jews of Jesus' day were "sons of Abraham," but they were not "sons of Abraham" in a literal sense.
If you depend upon supposedly inerrant genealogies to validate your faith, then you're out of luck. The Bible contradicts itself and cannot be trusted as the true word of God. If you understand how Jewish genealogies work, then the Bible maintains its inerrancy but you have yet another reason to toss out young-earth theories.
I've always maintained that the real problem with young-earthers is not that they don't understand science -- they don't understand their Bibles and the underlying Hebrew and Greek very well. I certainly consider young-earthers to be my brothers and sisters in Christ -- we have so, so much in common that our differences are essentially invisible in comparison. However, I have personally seen the faith or potential faith of so many people damaged when they find out that young-earth theology completely contradicts what God has revealed to us through his creation and in his word.
I'm not a YEC, but this statement does not follow from anything else you said.
I agree 100% with your conclusion that things like a salad-munching T. Rex frolicking with Adam and Eve don’t deserve a serious response. However, Mary Schweitzer and others after her have found soft, elastic tissue with an intact 3-dimensional structure after the tissue structures were demineralized.
Say, that’s a good point:
“Not one “blood cell” has been found.....but they did find FOSSILIZED blood cells.”
Or to put it another way, “No dinosaur bones have found. Not one, only FOSSILIZED BONES.”
Also, note what Mary Schweitzer -- a real scientist and a conservative, Bible-believing Christian -- had to say about the "museum."
But Dr. Schweitzer dismissed the museums content without any firsthand investigation, stating, I haven't been to the museum. But I think the whole subject of a creation-based museum combines really bad science and really weak faith .It's a misunderstanding of what is a science to begin with....If you're doing science, you have to play by certain rules. They're trying to rewrite the rules of science and call it science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.