Posted on 04/29/2013 8:13:56 AM PDT by kimtom
"... A recent discovery by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, however, has given reason for all but committed evolutionists to question this assumption. Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.
Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. Initially, some skeptical scientists suggested that bacterial biofilms (dead bacteria aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone cells. Recently Schweitzer and coworkers found biochemical evidence for intact fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective tissue. This is important because collagen is a highly distinctive protein not made by bacteria. (See Schweitzer’s review article in Scientific American [December 2010, pp. 62–69] titled “Blood from Stone.”)
Some evolutionists have strongly criticized Schweitzer’s conclusions because they are understandably reluctant to concede the existence of blood vessels, cells with nuclei, tissue elasticity, and intact protein fragments in a dinosaur bone dated at 68 million years old. Other evolutionists, who find Schweitzer’s evidence too compelling to ignore, simply conclude that there is some previously unrecognized form of fossilization that preserves cells and protein fragments over tens of millions of years. Needless to say, no evolutionist has publically considered the possibility that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old. ....."
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Wow! What an article.
Now tell us how the chemical elements in the young Earth got there, and where they came from.
Because if one holds not that "the Earth is younger than science says" but rather "the Old Testament chronology of births and deaths is an accurate timeline of the Earth's age" then all it takes is a clear indication of 20,000 years or thereabouts.
You think of Genesis as a parable.
Do you have scripture that shows that Christ considered it that way?
The parables He told were clearly stated as parables.
Genesis is written as a history.
It is NOT written as history. It is inspired by God but written with the understanding and vocabulary of a bronze age shepherd.
This is true, but not only that they conveniently forget definitions, like day being "one rotation of the Earth with respect to the sun"/"the time it takes the sun to return to the same position in the sky" -- in the first few days of creation there is no sun (or Earth on the first day) -- the Hebrew word for 'day' there can mean "some period of time", which we even have in English for the meaning of 'day' (e.s. "back in my day", "in the days of King David" etc).
The “young earth” theory, that the earth is just a few thousand years old is not supported by any basis, theological or scientific, its nonsense.
This is untrue, if God is omnipotent and superior to creation then he could run through the creation-events in seconds rather than days/millennia -- that is to say that he could have spread out the universe after "the big bang" (creation of light) faster than light's own speed [like blowing up a balloon increases the distance between points on the surface] -- so there's no reason to dismiss a literal 24-hrs out of hand.
Another interesting possibility is the time between the creation and the fall -- if there is no death before the fall, then would man have aged? It therefore makes some sense to start counting Adam's age as being from the fall & expulsion from Eden rather than his creation-date; granted, that's non-literal and a bit of a leap, but not unreasonable.
The Holes in the “Young Earth” theory are massive, let alone the very idea that the bible tells the age of the earth to begin with, which when read literally or figuratively it clearly makes no such offering.
There are problems with the old earth theories too, maybe not as many but they are there: Helium, IIRC, shouldn't be on this planet at all if it's millions of years old because at the rate of loss that we have now it would have all run out.
When it gets down to the nitty-gritty of daily living it must be asked: does it matter? And I've got to say 'no' -- it doesn't matter if the 'day' is literal or figurative because it's not about 'days', it's about God creating & how that impacts the human-God relationship.
The main problem, as I see it, is that evolution is violation of God creating things and declaring they reproduce "after its own kind."
I agree; but
The gaps do not account for 1000’s of years.
I would not be dogmatic and say 4004 B.C. either.
“It is NOT written as history.”
Says you with the level of authority that you have.
God
Same here, but I'm Catholic and all I need to believe is that God is reponsible for all Creation and that at some point He breathed life into Man. The rest of it is a lot of noise and I'm not sure why people get so worked up about it.
Death before sin is a problem as well, because death is a consequence of sin.
Science and Religion are very compatible, the only folks that find them to be otherwise are the folks who subscribe to the outdated and unproven Darwinianism.
The “young earth” theory, that the earth is just a few thousand years old has more evidence than evolution has, yet the flat earth evolutionists refuse to even consider the facts.
The backlash from the flat earthers becomes a bit silly after awhile. The evidence proves of the presence of soft tissue in a dinosaur was found in the fossil. Which proves that dinosaurs are not as old as the flat earth evolution society suggests. We have more evidence to prove the earth is not billions of years old, than the flat earth evolution society has that the earth is billions of years old.
Other than a theory, evolution has never ever been proven as fact. Its not surprising that the evolutionists and their old age theory folks argue a non bending proposal.
Evolutionists argue that perhaps there are things we don’t quite know, and that is why they continue to cling to their pie in the sky belief that has never ever been proven.
Yet, because Christians dare to show the evidence that disproves evolution and their billion year old earth theory, they will go out of their way to even attack Christians for daring to call themselves scientists.
What really gets me is the way they claim that theological scholars are ignorant of what the Scriptures tell us. Anyone so utterly ignorant of theological facts who try to argue someone else’s theories are an affront to both God and Science.
The Holes in the theory of evolution are so massive, that you could literally put the whose universe into them. The idea that they dare to claim that the Scriptures agree with them is actually Blasphemous. Those who claim such an idea, do not even have a cursory understanding of either Hebrew or Greek. So for them to claim they know what the Scriptures say is not just ludicrous, but ignorant!
“...Dr Schweitzer’s research (as distinct from the Young Earth Creationists interpretation of it) is at Scientific American: ...”
I read the report, doesn’t change the fact that it difficult to ascribe the survival of softer tissues, But the rejection any alternative to the evolutionary interpretation.
Time is just another of God's creations. "Before Abraham was I Am". So to try to trap God into a prison of 7 days and 6000 years is so so foolish.
Science is struggling to get a grip on exactly what time is.
Yes, very well, but that isn’t even an argument presented.
(still too young)
“...I don’t think that we (Christians) have any business trying to guess ...”
yes, no one knows.
But this is about two opposing world views.
Actually it is science that has much to answer for, by picking and choosing which facts to make known and which to sweep under the rug...
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
The Holy Spirit will open ones heart to accept God, but when He does, the heart will then accept the Scriptures to be the very Word of God.
Thus the heart will then be open to the truth, and the truth is what the Scriptures say, not what human scientists say.
So, my statement still stands as correct.
I don’t condemn you. Unlike you I don’t believe that’s my job.
This is true.
Though I'm pretty sure that plants don't count for 'death' (i.e. man and animals could certainly eat as many plants as they wanted w/o it counting as death; and carnivores eating may not have counted either -- we have to remember that man is special from all the animals, being made in God's image, so even animal deaths* might not have counted [very spotty, but a possibility])... or maybe the Tree of Life was a Hot-dog tree and carnivores ate that. ;)
* -- God's warning about eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil would be even more powerful if there was a carnivore/animal-death ecological-cycle going on in Eden because it would have a sort of "if you do this, you'll be part of that cycle" connotation. (Remember that 'the world' can mean mankind as in Jn 3:16.)
** -- Note I'm not denying the Bible, I'm pointing out that the death of man, any man, is a very significant event; likely much, much more than we know or understand.
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.