Nah!
Posted on 03/24/2005 12:04:54 PM PST by wallcrawlr
the problem is you cannot prove it is Gods word. the Muslims claim gods word also in the Koran. So who has the franchise on truth?
Whether fish or salamander, these were preserved in so fresh a state, the scientific correspondent reported, that those present immediately broke open the ice encasing the specimens and devoured them with relish on the spot.... Which was that "those present" at those "excavations" at the Kolyma River were half-starved zeks (gulag prisoners) who would eat anything smacking of protein or carbohydrates or fat no matter how obviously old.The magazine no doubt astonished its small audience with the news of how successfully the flesh of fish could be kept fresh in a frozen state. But few, indeed, among its readers were able to decipher the genuine and heroic meaning of this incautious report.
Ignore the freezer burn.
Wow, someone had a nice warm bowl of Cream of Grouch this morning. :P
Disrespect is taken when the Bible is not respected. Whether you mean it or not.
And I'm perfectly content realizing thats "my problem". As a Christian, I'll accept disrespect when its based on someones persecution of the word of God.
Science and God, one is a gift from the other....you choose which.
That is the trick, isn't it? Non-specific statements can never be wrong.
I don't really care if you are offended. These are matters which we as limited humans will never know. As I posted earlier you and the fundamentalist Muslims are birds of a feather. Both of your groups are convinced that you know the one and only truth. Fortunately Christians have moved on from their old ways of killing those who do not agree with them. The Muslims are still working on it.
There is no way that soft tissue lasted 70 million years.
Obviously the geologists have been lying to us.
This is the greatest boon to creationist science since it's inception.
ummm...yeah, I know that.
Its obvious.
I dont live my life looking for selfish opportunities to offend people...you and I have chosen to live differently I guess.
When youre able to, please share a personal belief you have so that I can take the opportunity to trash it. I want to see what I'm missing.
Salamanders have to be properly cooked, preferably for at least seven years. No Salamander sushi.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=67&letter=S
Nah!
Why not?
I was simply making a point. Over the past several millenia, humans have been interpreting the Bible in differing ways. Heated arguments and even wars have been fought because different people have interpreted Scriptures differently. Other than your own faith, what evidence do you have that your interpretation of the Bible must be absolutely the correct one and that anything that anyone else has to say is completely without merit? As I said before, Scripture is inerrant, but humans are not. If the Bible is so easy to understand and no interpretation is required, why are there so many different opinions as to what the Bible says?
Why does soft tissue decay? What is the mechanism? Please just answer that question as it is the key to understanding whether or not soft tissue can last 70 million years.
Oh please. You might as well believe in the tooth fairy. If soft tissue was incased in several inches of diamond ... perhaps. In rock the dessication alone would dry it up and petrify it.
Of course the scientific community will believe it. They HAVE to.
You're too far gone for a rational discussion.
"soft tissue survives 70 million years"
LOL!!!!
The very questions that direct to me are what YOU need to answer!
I'm not going to waste my time on this. I'll waste my time on other issues but this one is OBVIOUS.
This soft tissue was encased in petrified bone. The article talks about the very special circumstances that led to the soft tissue surviving.
Is this type of preservation common? Probably not. However, the existence of this soft tissue is proof that it CAN happen.
Since you refuse to answer my question, I will assume that you don't know what causes soft tissue to decay. The answer is bacterial action. Soft tissue in a sterile environment will not decay. Only when exposed to bacteria does it decay. Therefore, if encapsulated in mineral deposits that prevent bacterial exposure, there's no reason to assume that the soft tissue cannot survive. Since all you've presented so far are arguments from incredulity and some borderline ad hominem attacks, I will assume that you will have nothing constructive to say on this matter. I simply put this information out so that lurkers will see it. From this day forward, I will have nothing further to say to you. Regards.
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.