Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dinosaur soft tissue and protein—even more confirmation! (more evidence for young earth creation!!!)
CMI ^ | May 6, 2009 | Carl Wieland

Posted on 05/06/2009 8:49:01 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 261-269 next last
To: keithtoo
"These animals could not have supported their own weight! Their hearts could not have pumped blood to their brains if their heads ever rose above horizontal! Something was different eons ago."

Yes, they didn't exist- ever. The Smaller, dog and horse sized "dinosaurs",(reptiles) yes, but those giant sized figments of a childs imagination never did. There are made up of plastic "bones" created to fit ONE large bone discovered, and ASSUMED to be a large creature.

A spine of a whale discovered on a hill becomes a dinosaur spine, because a whale couldn't possibly have died there...

81 posted on 05/06/2009 10:31:39 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Since the same term (day) is applied to the periods of time here in Genesis I don’t it would be wrong to say they are all of equal length.
But I don’t follow on: “God also makes a distinction from “day one” to the days after creation of the sun.”

To my reading the sun was part of “the heavens” already created.


82 posted on 05/06/2009 10:35:25 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Wissa
"As for me, I believe that some of the people here are so fired up about their 110% absolute unquestionable understanding of the bible that they'd feel that anyone raising doubts is doing the work of Satan."

You aren't describing me. I have absolute faith in the Lord, and know without question that all TRUTH, all answers to all questions leads to the Lord.

Anyone trying to lead people AWAY from the lord is absolutely doing Satans work.

83 posted on 05/06/2009 10:35:33 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
...but those giant sized figments of a childs imagination never did. There are made up of plastic "bones" created to fit ONE large bone discovered, and ASSUMED to be a large creature.

Oh, no! You're on to those evil, atheist scientists who knowingly risk their careers & reputations in a hidden attempt to disprove God & The Bible!

(You do know there are lots of partial dinosaur skeletons, plenty of skulls & even some full skeletons that totally disprove your ramblings, right?)

84 posted on 05/06/2009 10:45:05 AM PDT by gdani (I've got a new road under my wheels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR
The predisposition to believe the Bible as inerrant does not require Hagee, et al, to believe an actual 6 day Creation. Sometimes I think that is a form of grand standing to display just how much “faith” they have in God’s Word. The problem is that I am not sure the intent behind such passages was to take them as literally as we might other passages. There are all sorts of examples that even Hagee would agree to that. However, traditional Creation interpretation is a trumped up Maginot Line that “Bible believers” have said they cannot cross. I’m not sure the Lord intended that.

I have come to the conclusion that the Lord really cares about two main things: How we regard Him and how we regard each other. Regarding Him, IMHO, means that we acknowledge all of His creation and respect it. Regarding each other is more complicated (do no murder, do not steal, do not run off with your best friend's wife, etc...IOW, do nothing that harms or hurts another person unless it is in defense of yourself).

85 posted on 05/06/2009 10:48:11 AM PDT by meandog (There are bad no dogs, only bad owners--the only good bad owner is one mauled by a good bad dog!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
65-80 million year old soft tissue found in multiple dino specimens. Which theory predicts this find, creation or evolution??? Ping!

So "creation" predicted a 65-80 million year old sample?? So much for 6000 years...

86 posted on 05/06/2009 10:48:42 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment....cut in half during the Clinton years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Huh? What?? You mean, that this means, that the earth is not like 65 billion years old as we are told??????


87 posted on 05/06/2009 10:51:08 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (Right wing military retiree. Proudly on DHLS hit list!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Fossil Backs Theory Linking Dinosaurs To Birds
88 posted on 05/06/2009 10:54:24 AM PDT by steve-b (Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Second time, the other stories were about how the Darwin cult couldn't come to grips with the soft tissue contained in the T. rex bone of her first find.

What evolution believers cannot come to grips with is that this somehow proves/shows that the Earth is a mere 6000 years old depsite all records showing it very clearly is not........because this says NOTHING about the age of the tissue in question, only that it has been discovered.....and yes, I saw your circular logic and step #2 is a false notion. Just because something has not been observed yet does not mean it does not occur.

89 posted on 05/06/2009 11:03:53 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment....cut in half during the Clinton years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; DBCJR; hosepipe; metmom; GodGunsGuts; editor-surveyor; Fichori; xzins
Determining what is symbolic and what is actual needs divine illumination.

I, too, agree with DBCJR's statement, but with a qualification: I really don't know how he defines "actual." Does this mean "literal," as in "a literal reading of the Biblical texts?"

If so, the symbol would already contain this literal meaning as part of itself. As Eric Voëgelin has pointed out, symbols can carry various meanings, but they all must be cognate: that is, they are all unified by the ultimate meaning of the symbol, which may "surpasseth human understanding" altogether. But this characteristic of symbols means that there are different "levels" of reading and meaning; and the plain (literal) text is the first level, or threshold of the symbol. Or at least this is how I understand symbols. Symbols must be "reflected" before they can be understood.

And my experience is that it is the Holy Spirit who draws us, who inspires us, to see in the symbol what God intends for us to see: Engagement of the holy text is a process facilitated by the Spirit. Thus long-term Bible readers often have the experience of finding "new" meanings in the text that they hadn't realized before. When the Spirit leads, the Holy Scriptures are ever new....

I feel pretty certain that you, dearest sister in Christ, could corroborate this sort of experience.

Thank you ever so much for your beautiful essay/post!

90 posted on 05/06/2009 11:04:38 AM PDT by betty boop (All truthful knowledge begins and ends in experience. — Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Certain colors of animals are FREQUENTLY selected for in nature. Those “color genes” get passed on to offspring all the time, changing populations....all the time.

Insects and rodents do this ALL the time.


91 posted on 05/06/2009 11:07:32 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment....cut in half during the Clinton years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
To my reading the sun was part of “the heavens” already created.

The sun was created on the 4th day, AFTER the earth was created.

92 posted on 05/06/2009 11:09:07 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Bookmark to read after work


93 posted on 05/06/2009 11:12:43 AM PDT by DocRock (All they that TAKE the sword shall perish with the sword. Matthew 26:52 Gun grabbers beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; DBCJR; hosepipe; metmom; GodGunsGuts; editor-surveyor; Fichori; xzins
Thank you oh so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

And my experience is that it is the Holy Spirit who draws us, who inspires us, to see in the symbol what God intends for us to see: Engagement of the holy text is a process facilitated by the Spirit. Thus long-term Bible readers often have the experience of finding "new" meanings in the text that they hadn't realized before. When the Spirit leads, the Holy Scriptures are ever new....

So very true.

We don't just go "poof" when we become Christian and suddenly understand everything written in the words of God.

Sanctification is a walk.

[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:1-9

The longer we walk in The Lord, the better we know Him, the more we love Him, the more we trust Him and the deeper our understanding of Scripture.

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. - John 16:12

To God be the glory!


94 posted on 05/06/2009 11:30:25 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR
The on-going debate between evolution and creation, I think, is futile.
 
I would add that the ongoing debate between Christian factions about whether the Earth is 6000 years old or billions of years old is futile. It is an interesting theological debate but it has nothing to do with our salvation. If you truly believe in a young Earth that is 6000 years old, great, if you are right you can laugh at the silly old earthers when you all get to heaven for accepting Christ as your savior (not your geology knowledge.) Knowing the age of the Earth or God's method of creation does nothing to help you live a Christ like life. Go preach the gospel or feed a widow.

95 posted on 05/06/2009 11:31:12 AM PDT by azcap (Who is John Galt ? www.conservativeshirts.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry
"Certain colors of animals are FREQUENTLY selected for in nature. Those “color genes” get passed on to offspring all the time, changing populations....all the time. Insects and rodents do this ALL the time.

Don't confuse adaptation with "natural selection". We, and other species don't "evolve" to adapt to our environment. Our bodies simply wake up dormant genes that already exist in our DNA.

For evolution to be true, animals and humans would have to grow "improvements", add genes/ DNA which never existed before, become better, stronger, and above all, DIFFERENT. Why don't we ever grow a third arm and hand? It would come in handy after all, especially with all the multi tasking we are expected to do these days.

All we ever see with mutations in DNA/genetics is DEvolution, which leads to extinction.

And, we have NEVER seen any transitional forms, life changing from one form to another, IMPROVING.

We can see mutations, but they NEVER result in anything better, just something defective that either dies and/or is sterile and can't reproduce.

96 posted on 05/06/2009 11:33:52 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
There are made up of plastic "bones" created to fit ONE large bone discovered, and ASSUMED to be a large creature

Ummmm......they're not just excavating one bone and making the rest up. Yes, they use cast-replicas to put on display SOMETIMES.....but Sue (T-rex) was 80% complete at excavation...13 feet high at the hips and 42 feet long from head to tail....5 foot long skull.

Yes, they filled in the 20% with false bones, but had other T-Rex fossils to base them on.

They Creationist explanation is that she died in Noah's flood.....so large T-Rex dinosaurs were around when Man was around.

RIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiiiight......

97 posted on 05/06/2009 11:46:08 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment....cut in half during the Clinton years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Fools.


98 posted on 05/06/2009 11:48:11 AM PDT by Glenn (Free Venezuela!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gdani
"You do know there are lots of partial dinosaur skeletons, plenty of skulls & even some full skeletons that totally disprove your ramblings, right?) Not for those large mock ups. Just for the much smaller reptiles that get mutated into what are labeled "dinosaurs", like a "raptor".

You do know who drew the very first redemption's of "dinosaurs",(which found there way into all early textbooks teaching "evolution") don't you?

What's really amazing, is that those later, very large models of "dinosaurs" look exactly like the drawings that kid made, who had never seen "dinosaur fossils" in his life! Don't you ever ask yourself how that can be?

99 posted on 05/06/2009 11:50:56 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

You asked for examples of NATURAL SELECTION.....not EVOLUTION.

Natural selection is merely having a trait, mostly a genetic trait but some are behavioral, that makes it more likely you will pass on your genes to your offspring, thereby changing the percentage of that trait in a population....typically a trait that makes you more likely to attract a mate or more likely to survive to reproductive age.

Continue your rant.


100 posted on 05/06/2009 11:55:09 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment....cut in half during the Clinton years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 261-269 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson