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
What about all the “Yadda, Yadda, Yaddas” that they left out?
I'm not a YEC, but this statement does not follow from anything else you said.
Sorry, but there's just not enough space to repudiate the science against a world-wide flood, not to mention the various meanings of the Hebrew word eretz. Here is a good start from a Christian perspective and here is another.
I can go into further detail regarding the amount of heat and erosion that would be generated by a planet-wide flood, but that kind of research is easy to find using Google. Suffice it to say that, assuming a planet-wide flood, Noah's ark would have been floating in boiling wather and we would not find the nice, neat, species-matching sedimentary layers that we see all over the world.
See this article from the Smithsonian Magazine.
Please do not try to create confusion that is not there!
Yes, four people were left out of a geneology during the time of the kings, but that will never give us millions of years; it won’t even give us thousands. More to the point, the geneologies of Genesis are quite specific as to the cronological ages of people when they gave birth to the next named person, thus eliminating the question of possible omitted generations. We have an exact span from Adam to Noah in that geneology.
There is no “science” against the world wide flood/judgment; just dogma.
And abba-dabba doo to you too!
Really it's a laugh out loud statement.
Thank you for posting that quote.
I don't think I will hold my breath until the "alleged expert" goes back and proves the museum wrong.
do you know what I am referring to?
A lot more than four! Get out your Bible, write down the genealogies in each of the scripture passages I mentioned, and start comparing. You make my point that young-earthers generally aren't as familiar with what the Bible as they believe themselves to be.
Matthew was written for Jews who likely knew the genealogy in 1 Chronicles far better than you know your own ancestry for the past 100 years. So why did the Jews who read Matthew not balk about the huge discrepancy with 1 Chronicles? Because they understood the various ways that Jews maintained genealogies.
If you say that the genealogical "discrepancies" cannot make up thousands of years, then why did the Jews of Jesus' day call themselves Sons of Abraham and why is Jesus so often referred to as the son of David?
The first point is that you cannot use Biblical genealogies to give you a date for the creation of the earth.
The second point is that, unless you allow for proper interpretations of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot reconcile what God has told us through his word with what he has shown us through his creation. The distinctions you create are artificial.
Only recently has truth began to triumph. Continuing research in many fields is finally sorting fact from fiction.
I don't think I will hold my breath until the "alleged expert" goes back and proves the museum wrong.
I don't have to go to Iran to prove Achmydinnerjacket wrong. Do you?
The museum has been very open about its beliefs. One doesn't need to travel ther to understanding that they're using phony science and are misinterpreting the Bible.
Oops ... In checking my photograph of the engraving, the saying uses “begun” instead of “began.”
Dallas, and others,
What everyone engaged in this ‘debate’ are doing is showing a fractured front as ‘Christians”
Jesus rebuked his disciples when they tried to exclude the children from coming to see Him. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it is recorded that He said “But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” And “Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.” If you cannot believe, as a child would, simply and completely, you shall not eneter.
I was raised in a secular world. Science could explain all. In many cases it can. But where Gods Word is different, I prefer to be as the small child and trust in the Lord.
For “of such” is the Kingdom of Heaven. Why? Trusting belief. Those who would believe in Jesus, in God, in Heaven as though a small child, “Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.”
I am a relatively newly saved Christian. As such, I am as a new creation. I am to walk by Faith, not by sight.
What does that mean? There may be ‘evidence’ that things happened differently than what is recorded in the Bible. But I am to have Faith that that written Word of God is True. All of it. Not just the parts that make sense, not just the parts I think sound pretty, not just the parts that do not cause me conviction. All Of It.
Having said that, who is willing to point a finger at God or His Word and shout “YOU LIE!!!” Is that not what you are doing when you try to discredit His Word?
For you Christians who say that Genesis is wrong, what other Books of the Bible are you willing to rip out to make it correct? Where else do you see God lying? Jonah and the fish? Perhaps the parting of the Red Sea? Perhaps Jesus walking on water?, bringing the dead to life?, changing water to wine? or perhaps even the Resurrection? Where else does God Lie to you?
I would say you need to take a look at your salvation, forget this silly evo-creation ‘debate’ and ask yourself if you are truly saved or not? Do you know Jesus? Do you know Him as your Savior? Do you know His Word?
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Notice what man was given to eat: “All the fruit of the trees, to you it shall be for meat.”
Notice what the animals were given to eat: “And to every beast of the earth.....I have given every green herb for meat...”
Nowhere does it describe any animals being given for meat, either for man or animal. (Veggie TRex, you bet)
You doubt the Word of God, you even doubt Jesus, as He is “The Word”.
Bottom line is Faith, in God, In His Son, in His Word. God does Not Lie. And it is the purpose of this ‘debate’ to try to discredit not only “A Book of the Bible”, but the first and arguably cornerstone book of the Bible. If it can be said that Genesis is False, well then, lets keep going, what OTHER books are wrong.
I myself, will choose to have that simple faith that God doesn’t lie. It is better to trust in the Lord, than to believe in man. Evolution is a man-made construct to try to explain the world, as seen. It is a Theory. It is not proven, nor provable. It is an attempt to render man as not divinely created, not any different than any other life form on this planet. It is an attempt to de-humanize.
Now it appears she has indeed found just that, soft tissues, from her description.
But for soft tissue longevity I'd have to point to the coney dogs at my local mini-mart. Send one of those to Ms. Mary for testing!
I wonder if the "alleged expert" is also an "alleged expert" on global warming?
Today's MSM will provide a sound bite from any "alleged expert" as fact.
The real debate is when the land now covered by sedimentary layers was flooded and for how long, not whether the land in question was once covered by water.
Creationists and evolutions are in perfect agreement that sedimentary layers were created when the landmass in question was underwater.
So it is a question of age and mechanism of action, not what occurred. Kansas, Pennsylvania, Montana, Mongolia, etc. were all once underwater.
That’s just fine. What I can’t stand is the sensationalist headlines and misleading claims that a “soft” “tissue” was found, like they cut into a bone and found marrow or actual freakin blood cells. It’s a play on the ignorance of those that don’t know the difference between a “soft” “tissue” and a “soft tissue”, one being a spongy to the feel tissue, the other being a medical term for any one of a dozen types of connective tissues....in this case, fossilized ones.
Doesn’t bother or surprise me in the least that when they dissolve the mineral content in a few fossils, there is “something” there any more than them grinding fossilized ink in an ammonia compound to make something that is inky.
You may be new to these threads, so rest assured that any real animosities were resolved long ago. Because of my father's recent final illness and death, I haven't poked around here much in more than two months. It's nothing more than fellow believers having an in-family conversation. We all agree that Genesis is the inspired word of God, but we differ in interpreting just a few passages.
Editor-Surveyor, GodGunGuts, and I all look forward to spending eternity together with Jesus. In spite of our differing beliefs about the age of the earth, those differences don't make us better or worse Christians. A number of us have already agreed to find one another in heaven if we never meet on earth. What joy we will be able to share throughout eternity!
If I find out in heaven that the earth really is 6,000 years old, then I'm not going to argue with God. Similarly, if the earth is 4.5 billion years old, my fellow young-earth believers are not going to argue with God either.
Editor-Surveyor, GodGunsGuts, and others have perfectly legitimate reasons to support a young-earth viewpoint. For example, they see the very real problem of some scientists belittling people of faith. They see militant atheism, especially on college campuses.
I agree with my friends on these things. I share their concern. We agree that some scientists are committed to a militant atheism. These scientists think that you can't be a real scientist unless you're an atheist. These scientists are dead wrong.
However, I come from a slightly different background and see other problems, too. My education and 25 years of work are in science. My first degree was from Baylor University and I have one year of formal, college-level background in Bible study as well a full year of Hebrew. All that means is that each of us have encountered different things in our education and careers that have shaped us.
Some of the things I have seen in college and in work gives me problems with the young-earth position. For example, I saw kids coming to college who were raised to believe that if you didn't believe in a young earth, you didn't believe in the Bible. When they encountered proof after proof that the earth and the universe are really billions of years old, some of them lost their faith. After all, if the earth isn't 6,000 years old, then the rest of the Bible may not be true either.
I have also had co-workers through the years who resisted Christianity because their science expertise had convinced them that the earth is very old and they couldn't reconcile that with some Christian teachers. I have had to work very hard to show my friends that all truth is God's truth and that there is no conflict between a literal belief in the Bible and science. When there appears to be a conflict, you have to (a) look and see whether the science is accurate; and (b) check and see whether your interpretation of the Bible is accurate.
Unlike Greek or English, Hebrew is a very narrow language and much of the meaning depends on context.
For example, look at how the Hebrew word eretz as used in the Bible. It can mean anything from the actual soil that you're standing upon, to a city, or to the entire planet. My young-earth friends interpret eretz to mean that Noah's flood covered the entire planet because that is a long-standing tradition. I and most others with science training see big problems with interpreting eretz to mean the entire planet and point out that the language of the Bible does not require us to believe that Noah's flood covered the entire planet.
We may disagree on a few things, but they are like a pinhead compared with the universe in comparison to what we have in common, which is a commitment to follow Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and proclaim his name and his love to every living being.
I’ll go with their description of what they did since what they found was indeed “soft tissues” not just something squishy to the touch.
In other words it was actual blood cells not just a mineral filled space.
And that is just how the caption with the picture described it: “A tiny blob of stretchy brown matter, soft tissue from inside the leg bone, suggests the specimen had not completely decomposed”.
So no need to get all tied up over the word “fossil”. It doesn’t mean replaced with mineral just as the dried out ink was still ink and was ink when mixed with a solvent.
Since you don’t know yourself, how might I guess?
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.