Posted on 11/03/2007 7:44:49 PM PDT by 49th
The chicken egg has been prepped for surgery – a pea-size hole cut in the shell and covered with sticky tape. And now Hans Larsson, a McGill University researcher, removes it from the incubator, places it under a microscope and prepares to operate.
He gently peels off the tape and teases back the membranes that line the shell with tweezers. Through the eyepiece, he can see the tiny dot of a heart, steadily beating. He can also see the bud where he implants a milky bead doused in a protein. He hopes it will coax the embryo to grow a big tail. A dinosaur-like tail.
paleontologist, Prof. Larsson spends a significant portion of his time doing traditional dinosaur hunting, digging fossils as far afield as the Arctic and Africa with jackhammers and pickaxes. But he has long been frustrated with the limitations of studying old bones and what they reveal about the mysteries of evolution.
It was by examining ancient skeletons that paleontologists learned that modern birds, including chickens, descended from dinosaurs and that their relatives include such fierce predators as Tyrannosaurus rex. What fossils don't reveal, though, is how exactly such dramatic anatomical changes first arose. How did teeth the size of bananas turn into beaks? Or mighty tails become wimpy, feathered stumps?
For answers, Prof. Larsson has turned to the burgeoning field of evo-devo – or evolutionary developmental biology – a radical new approach to understanding the past.
It is based on the astonishing discovery that modern animals, including humans, share many of the same body-building genes and that some of these genes have been around for millions of years.
(Excerpt) Read more at theglobeandmail.com ...
I was serious. I thank you for showing me how absolutely unscientific and utterly ridiculous the 6,000-10,000 claim is.
I don’t mean that as a personal insult, but I just don’t believe anybody EVER lived 900 years, and I notice there’s a WHOLE lot of guessing in there. If the Bible is to be taken literally and is infallible, shouldn’t all this be crystal clear and not up for debate?
“There are literally hundreds of independent unrelated tests in fields ranging from astronomy to geology that all indicate an old earth... and yet you’re willing to put up with this crap? In Bishop Ussher’s day this was tolerable, but to believe this now is to wallow in self-inflicted ignorance.”
Well said. But you know that you’re battling the infallible Bible, don’t you?
Alter Kater:
...It can be inferred that Noah begat his son, Shem, at the age of 502 years (98 years before the Flood)...
So let me get this straight. There's no chronology anywhere in the Bible, but you're inferring one by making a whole host of dubious suppositions (like the age at which Noah "begat" Shem),
“dubious suppositions”?
I supplied the references, but I doubt you’ve cracked open the Bible in some time, and you surely don’t take it seriously.
So let me try to spell out a little more clearly:
Genesis 7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
==> This means Noah was 600 years old at the time of the Flood.
Genesis 11:10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:
==> This means Shem was 98 years old at the time of the Flood.
600 (age of Noah at the time of the Flood) minus 98 (age of Shem at the time of the Flood) equals 502 (age of Noah when he begat his son Shem).
Was this all that hard?
and yet it's scientists who are on thin ice for making too many assumptions?
Rolls eyes....
There are literally hundreds of independent unrelated tests in fields ranging from astronomy to geology that all indicate an old earth... and yet you're willing to put up with this crap?
Proverbs 13:13 Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded.
Call me what you like, but you shouldn’t despise God’s Word – no matter how highly you esteem whatever it is in the fields of geology and astronomy that you hold near and dear.
In Bishop Ussher's day this was tolerable, but to believe this now is to wallow in self-inflicted ignorance.
It is better to trust God, that to put confidence in man or princes.
I have been working in the field of technology for close to 30 years, and you know something? – Belief in God’s Word is no impediment (of course I’m talking about technology that can actually be tested and can lead to real results and inventions – not to ephemeral hypotheses du jour).
And if God’s Word doesn’t square with what the world is trying to teach (e.g., ‘goo to you evolution’; 4.3G year old earth, etc), stick with God’s Word and understand that we might not actually understand how HE did it (i.e., by definition God stands outside (and inside) the Box. We cannot draw a circle around Him. Whether He used the principles of time dilation, or miraculous fiat – that was/is His call).
It is sad when people consider themselves to be wiser than God.
Romans 1:21-22 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,…
gracesdad:
I was serious.
I suspect not.
I thank you for showing me how absolutely unscientific and utterly ridiculous the 6,000-10,000 claim is.
I don’t mean that as a personal insult, but I just don’t believe anybody EVER lived 900 years,
Because you haven’t seen it – makes it not so. Right.
and I notice there’s a WHOLE lot of guessing in there. If the Bible is to be taken literally and is infallible,
Although the Bible is primarily a Book about Jesus and man’s Redemption and Salvation, and not a Book of Science – I’m not exactly sure what you consider to be a “WHOLE lot of guessing”. Unless you are offended about the debate I suggested regarding the meaning of ‘begats’. To me it’s a nit, but if this is what causes you to throw up your hand’s over the Bible – so be it.
…shouldn’t all this be crystal clear and not up for debate?…
We’re people. Although God’s Word is infallible, we’re fallible and our vision can get blurred.
That said, at least if you are reading the Bible and ‘debating’ it, you have a better chance of arriving at the Truth than not reading it and mocking it.
Feel free to have the last word, for given your degree of openness and serious respect for the Bible I suspect that anything else I’d submit would fall into the category of casting pearls in front of swine.
You've said that before and I'm sure you'll say that again, but you were wrong the first time you said it and you're wrong now.
As you would say, prove me wrong.
So, you're a resident expert on crap now? So tell me, where does one find fossilized crap? Can you tell the age of it by looking at it or do you have to use those thiggy majiggs to denote age of crap?
Prove you wrong? I've already listed several evidences for an old earth, for life dating back 3.5-4 billion years, and for the Big Bang. If you haven't seen them, my only guess is that you must not be paying attention. I'm happy to post more, but I'd start with what I've posted already.
They're called coprolites, they're found all over the world, and they can be enormously useful to researchers.
Can you tell the age of it by looking at it or do you have to use those thiggy majiggs to denote age of crap?
Huh? There are a number of ways we can determine the age of coprolites, but the actual dating methods used depend on where they're found.
I think you're rather seriously misreading the Bible. This is not what St. Augustine got out of the Bible. This isn't what Maimonides or Nahmanides, nor even Luther and Calvin used the Bible for.
Genesis isn't a science text. It leaves a lot more unsaid that it says. And it has not been interpreted as a completely literal accounting of events for most of the last 3000 years of the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
Augustine realized that too many problems and contradictions crop up when you look at Genesis as history rather than parable. Was his faith insufficient?
Hey, you have been provided evidence from the Bible in hundreds of years. All that I am asking is for the same consideration from you. Give me the evolutionary breakdown in hundreds of years and not millions, billions or eras. Get it?
Spouting rhetoric with no facts is a trait of evos. Where's the evidence that Luther didn't believe in the Genesis account? I'll be waiting.
Creation See also: Allegorical interpretations of Genesis In "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. Augustine also doesn’t envisage original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up. [4] In "The City of God", Augustine also defended what would be called today as young Earth creationism.
You're putting words in my mouth. My point is that Luther didn't believe that the Bible was allegory-free any more than anyone else did. Luther, unlike Augustine, did believe that the six-day stuff was literally true.
But unlike you, Luther and Augustine and all the rest recognized that the purpose of the Bible isn't to communicate facts, it's to communicate truths. From a factual perspective, the Genesis creation account isn't particularly useful.
Exactly.
Augustine understood that one doesn't have to read Genesis literally to capture its meaning. You, apparently, don't. The fact that Augustine was wrong on the specific facts is irrelevant... we have the advantage of 1600 years of subsequent scholarship to help us with those.
The only thing I'm getting from you is verbal diahhrea. What would a "hundred year breakdown" look like, exactly?
HUH? Truths don't equal facts? No wonder you are so screwed up.
You know, kind of like the factural Biblical acount of mankind. I know you've seen it. You ragged on it.
No, not necessarily. You should read up more on faith and reason. Faith by definition isn't fact-based. You're judging religion by precisely the wrong standards.
So you don't believe all of what Augustine says, you just take out the part that fits your gap makers. Sheesh.
Oh, because I don't judge religion by an evos standard I must be doing it wrong. Wonder why the evos can't see that their standard is wrong when judged from a religious standard?
You're completely missing the point. Of course I don't believe everything that Augustine says. But I do accept his argument that Genesis, and the Creation Account in particular, can't be taken literally. Is this an all or nothing thing? You either agree with everything Augustine ever wrote or you don't? Don't be ridiculous.
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.