Posted on 05/01/2009 8:25:18 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
A dinosaur bone buried for 80 million years has yielded a mix of proteins and microstructures resembling cells. The finding is important because it should resolve doubts about a previous report that also claimed to have extracted dino tissue from fossils...
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
“Why is donmeaker so angry all the time?”
Satan has a way of clouding the mind and bringing false “reason” into it. From pharoah to Judas it plays out time after time in the scriptures. In mild cases it is displayed in everything from trust in false gods to atheism or maybe worship of earth or science. But in extreme cases it leads to situations like Hitlers belief in Darwinism and thus the superiority of one race over another via “survival of the fittest”. In the end it all leads to Godlessness and separation from the true God.
I guess I’m saying if I were deceived to that point I would live my life angry as well.
As others have already pointed out, this is based upon the work of Mary Schweitzer, which is detailed in Discovery Magazine. Here are some quotes from the article. She says some things that echo my own experiences, both good and bad.
Schweitzer's first forays into paleontology were "a total hook," she says. Not only was she fascinated by the science, but to her, digging into ancient strata seemed like reading the history of God's handiwork. Schweitzer worships at two churches—an evangelical church in Montana and a nondenominational one when she is back home in North Carolina—and when she talks about her faith, her bristly demeanor falls away. "God is so multidimensional," she says. "I see a sense of humor. I see His compassion in the world around me. It makes me curious, because the creator is revealed in the creation." Unlike many creationists, she finds the notion of a world evolving over billions of years theologically exhilarating: "That makes God a lot bigger than thinking of Him as a magician that pulled everything out in one fell swoop."
...
While scientists struggled to make sense of the bones, another community had no doubt about how to interpret the results. The reports were quickly embraced by biblical literalists who believe God created life on Earth less than 10,000 years ago. For decades they have been working to place a scientific patina on their ideas. The Institute for Creation Research runs a graduate school near San Diego with 11 instructors who hold doctorates in biochemistry, geology, and other sciences. Conferences offer papers on topics like the physics of the Genesis flood. "Any time there's empirical evidence, that's gold for them," says Ronald Numbers, a professor of the history of science and medicine at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
To Schweitzer, trying to prove your religious beliefs through empirical evidence is absurd, if not sacrilegious. "If God is who He says He is, He doesn't need us to twist and contort scientific data," she says. "The thing that's most important to God is our faith. Therefore, He's not going to allow Himself to be proven by scientific methodologies."
Some creationists, noting Schweitzer's evangelical faith, have tried to pressure her into siding with them. "It is high time that the 'Scientific' community comes clean: meaning that the public is going to hold them ACCOUNTABLE when they find out that they have been misled," reads a recent e-mail message Schweitzer received. She has received dozens of similar notes, a few of them outright menacing.
These religious attacks wound her far more than the scientific ones. "It rips my guts out," she says. "These people are claiming to represent the Christ that I love. They're not doing a very good job. It's no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists." She told one zealot, "You know, if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me, I'd run."
Ironically, the insides of Cretaceous-era dinosaur bones have only deepened Schweitzer's faith. "My God has gotten so much bigger since I've been a scientist," she says. "He doesn't stay in my boxes."
God bless you, my brother.
I know you have thick skin, you have to with some folks aruond here. It is fascinating to watch the reaction of some around here, who are so willing to believe that soft tissue can be found in supposed 80 million year old fossils, and profoundly refuse and mock those of us with the truth on our side. They certainly have scales over their eyes.
Wow, thanks for pulling out those quotes.
Why don't you complain to JimRob? Oh wait he may not agree with your constant attack on Christianity. I know, why don't you start your own server farm and post away.
Then I guess those are the translations!
Those who insist on yom meaning a literal 24-hour day have to deal with the fact that every scientific observation contradicts their theology.
Those who interpret yom to mean an indeterminate period of time -- which is completely compatible with other uses of yom in the Bible -- find that there is no contradiction between science and the Bible.
...or, those translations are wrong!
Those are actually not all the uses of Yom in the OT, just the first on the list. It also is translated in various areas to Chronicles, Continually, Ever, and Evermore. Even in Genesis 1 & 2, there are at least four different translations of Yom. Even Moses, who is the attributed author of Genesis (among other books) used the word Yom to represent 12-hours, 24 hours, the creative week, forty days, several months, a lifetime, and eternity.
I quite agree. The Evos will believe just about anything, just so long as it removes God from His own creation!
Yes.
I don't think Peter had creationism in mind when he wrote this. Given the facts, Peter would have scoffed at creationism.
And speaking of “evolution”, since this thread was started to “show” evolution “false” simply because of the odd presence of proteins where none were expected: When fossils were first discovered, their presence was a mystery in of itself. After all, bones themselves are made of proteins (as well as minerals), so, it was strange to find bones that were apparently (at the time at least) thousands of years old.
Let's think about this point for a second. Even if the earth is only 6,000 years old, then that would mean the fossils (the bones) are at least 4,000 years old, if not older.
So if we're going to scoff and say, “It's IMPOSSIBLE that proteins could survive for millions of years”, isn't equally ludicrous to suggest that “bones” could survive for 4,000 years? After all, the central argument here is that, by our natural experience today, we never see a corpse from any animal survive past, at most, 100 years.
Unless something “special” happened to it. Like with mummies for example. Here, we see man replicating the natural preservative power of dry dessert conditions to preserve his remains.
So, now that we have established that we can't use our own, natural experience to judge whether it's possible that bones could survive for thousands of years, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that it's possible that proteins in the bones could last that long.
Or maybe even longer. After all, once the first 100 or so years are surpassed, what significant microbial activity could possibly occur that would decompose the proteins? There are no known microbes that metabolize so slowly as to only divide once every 1,000 years or so. So, once the initial hurdle is surpassed, there appears no significant reason to believe such internal proteins *couldn't* survive for thousands, tens of thousands, or even millions of years.
Speaking of microbes, one must remember that in many parts of the body (the bones included), there exists a sterile environment. So it's not like the bones started out with a load of bacteria already munching away at them right after the animal died. Decomposition occurs when insects and other scavengers break the sterile borders, such as the skin and later the bones, open, thus allowing microbial growth.
And one final point in this, admittedly, rambling post: The very process that encourages fossilization (quick sedimentation, along with a relatively anaerobic environment and later, relatively arid condition) are quite hostile to many microbes.
All of these points lead me, at least, to conclude, while surprising, it's not at all “devastating” or “contrary” to the theory of an old earth to find the presence of certain proteins in intact, relatively sterile (at the moment of death) bones.
But let's not let that stop us as we continue to claim we aren't "Christian enough" if we don't take the Bible literally, all the time. After all, there are some eyes to pluck out and hands to chop off next (c.f. Matt 5:29, 18:9, Mark 9:47)
Good post.
Romans 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.
Morning and evening of a “yom” without a Sun. Poetic language? Possible. Literal? Not likely.
Raining for “40 days and 40 nights” is also not usually said to be taken literally. “40 days and 40 nights” was the Levant equivalent of saying “a month of Sundays”. Good thing they didn't use that expression in the Bible, or we would be treated to a discourse among Creationists on how God manipulated time to make a literal “month of Sundays”.
Serious question: If it turned out that there was irrefutable proof - proof sufficient that you would completely be convinced - that YEC was wrong, would your faith, your belief in God, be changed or destroyed?
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.