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 ...
Yes, I know it’s a big deal. That was the end event I was referring to. Also, “taken from the dust of the Earth and having life breathed into him by God Himself” is not incompatible with evolution, IMHO. It’s just that it’s not accomplished in 1 second, like the YE folks seems to think is a prerequisite for some reason.
“..evolve as a subset of that original species...”
I would agree changes within species, but not change into another....i.e. frog, to horse.
(requires adding information to complexity)
If it were God's literal word, that would be one thing. But it's a compilation of mens' writings about God, translated and re-translated by men.
And I know for a fact that not all men tell the truth.
I also don't choose to limit God, as some do.
“A loaded question and a trap!!”
Not intended as either! I simply asked your opinion, nothing more. and you gave it. Nothing more.
You ask;
Okay, clearly you believe in young earth, so I ask you this simple quesiton... How old do you believe the Earth is, and what evidence do you cite to make that claim?
I hold to the belief that the earth is approximately 10,000 years old. My evidence/ Come on. I would have to write a thesis for all the evidence. However, I will attempt to truncate a short list of some problems I have with an universe that is supposed to be billions of years old.
Galaxies wind themselves up too fast,
Too few supernova remnants,
Comets disintegrate too quickly,
There is not enough mud on the sea floor,
There is not enough sodium in the sea, the earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast,
Many strata are too tightly bent,
Biological material decays much too fast,
The fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years,
There is too much helium in minerals,
there is too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata,
There is not nearly enough Stone Age skeletons (we have gazillions of animal fossils and sea fossils some on Mountains too high for normal expalanation, which actually supports a major world wide flood),
The agriculture technology is way to recent,
Written history is too short and does not support the length of time human have been a live according to an old earth theory.
You ask;
Are you suggesting that Geneisis in its original Hebrew gives the creation date?
Not a date, but obviously it points to a young earth age.
You ask;
Secondly are you suggesting, and with what evidence are you mounting for this, that animals and beasts found to live on the earth and believed by the hethens not to co-exist in time with Humanity did indeed do so?
Actually we have many stories from ancients that dinosaurs existed with humans. We even have evidence of drawings in caves of extinct animals. Why would ancient Indians in Peruvian caves draw them if they did not exist?
You ask;
Third, The great rusting of the oceans of the earth, that heathens believe happened for millions of years, and is evidenced by the massive iron deposits currently being mined, did not happen, how do you suggest they occurred?
There has always been many problems with the way we have been measuring the age of things, and now we even have more evidence. This is from, News Science
Two of the solar system's best natural timekeepers have been caught misbehaving, suggesting that the accepted ages for the oldest known rock samples are off by a million years or more.
According to two new studies, a radioactive version of the element samarium decays much more quickly than previously thought, and different versions of uranium don't always appear in the same relative quantities in earthly rocks.
Both elements are used by geologists to date rocks and chart the history of events on our planet and in the solar system.
"If you have a critical event in Earth's history, something like an extinction event or a climate change shift or a meteorite impact, you need to know the absolute age with the most confidence," says Joe Hiess of the British Geological Survey, who led one of the studies. "In Earth sciences there's a need to be able to define what happened first and what happened second."
You ask;
None of these suggested things which counter the “young earth” hypothesis disprove God, and no theologian worth their salt has ever suggested that science is at odds with God.
However, man here at FR do claim that very thing, and that is why I mentioned it in my statement to you.
You ask;
The literal reading of the prehistory of the Bible is an ignorant philosophy that flies in the face of thousands of years of Theology.
Says you. You have neither a learned, nor a simple cursory understanding of Hebrew or Greek, let alone of Judeo/Christian Theology to make such an ignorant statement.
“..Not intended as either! I..”
Sorry, I expected it, Topics of this nature brings out fierce emotions in some.
Sounds like a good book! Would you send it to me, and enclose your costs, which I will mail back?
Here's another excellent similar book on this topic, published some time ago but now freely downloadable, to which I refer you in a minutes-ago post on FR:
See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3013724/posts
(FWIW, my academic credentials in engineering and physical chemistry/spectroscopy are B.S., M.S., Ph.D.)
Though everything has a mechanism.
Proceed please.
YOh yea,
Please try to not use Google.
God will know you did if you do, even if I cannot prove it.
Try the religion forum for some real eye gouging and deleted comments.
"Just something to consider when/if a question of the scientific knowledge of the author(s) of this piece comes up.
Your retraction is noted, 47, though your reaction still does support the complaint that evolutionists are slow to consider criticisms.
IN TER JECTION! /school house rock...
Anyway, use “startpage.com” instead of google to keep them from logging your searches and IP.
“...Though everything has a mechanism.
Proceed please.
..”
God
Not to belittle your question.
Are you speaking the current state of things since creation?
Freepmail me with your address and i will get it out to you within the week.
The Christological reasons, with soteriological doctrine, is that "By man came sin and thereby death," not "By death came man and Sin." Capisce?
Not to believe in this is for one to be dead in sin, and slated for eternal damnation for calling The God's Written Words a fib.
Excuse me;
to which translation to prescribe to???
Do you believe God created Adam and Eve fully formed?
If He created an older human, why would He not also create an older earth?
Thanks. I’ll remember that.
“...I can assure you I know what I know because I know how to do independent theological research.
Faith does not have to be void of history, historic context, nor reason. Do you think Jesus made up stuff on the spot? No. He knew ...”
Where do you go for your research??
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.