Posted on 05/12/2009 7:26:20 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Hadrosaur Soft Tissues Another Blow to Long-Ages Myth
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
Recently-discovered dinosaur soft tissues, and even blood cells, represent some of the biggest hurdles for long-age evolutionary belief. Soft tissue was found in the femur of a large Tyrannosaurus rex about a decade ago, and more was discovered in another T. rex a few years later. And recently, soft tissues with proteins were found in a hadrosaur from Montana...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
I'm late to the party, I know, but that's an awesome set of quotes. It goes to show that even "settled" and "simple" issues like geocentrism aren't really settled or simple at all. If the simple Darwinian/Copernican model of the solar system was indeed correct, it means the Earth would be moving at many hundreds, even thousands of miles per hour, and that these speeds, somehow combined with all the other celestial objects, somehow results in what we call "gravity".
Not only can physicists not explain why we don't feel the effects of these whiplash-speeds, it appears that their heliocentric model really doesn't make things any simpler than the geocentric model. Very interested indeed, yet these scientists pass themselves as the "Ultimate Authority" on the matter. (More and more people are starting to see through the sham called 'modern science', I see...)
[courtesy ping to GourmetDan, the original poster of these marvelous quotes]
Yet you give liberalism, where it doesn’t belong, a complete free pass.
Oh wait, personal vendetta and malice IS liberalism.
What you’re experiencing is a response to what doesn’t belong.
Oh well.
This is the exact same thing you said in the first post. There are Biblical inaccuracies when it comes to archeology, like Kathleen Kenyon's findings at Jericho.
GGG - Here’s your “scientific discussion”.
Taking the position of sterilizing God from science for science’s sake is the liberal politically correct/atheist position. It’s really not that hard to grasp, particularly on a site called Free Republic. Perhaps a review for you from Jim Robinson is in order.
Again.
The Founding Fathers would scold you for your views. You’ve twisted it to incorporate liberalism, Christianity should be silenced in order for muslims and hindus and everybody else to feel good about themselves.
To say nothing of how antithetical this is to the Christian calling. We’re called to share the Truth, the Gospel. It stands to reason that an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent Christian God has a place in His creation, which of course includes science class.
The issue isn’t proselytizing, or theology in science class, rather the extraoridnary lengths the godless will go to to stamp out any mention of His name, even when an innocent child asks an innocent question about her teeth.
It’s not weak to stand up for Christ at every possible angle. PARTICULARLY when a child is asking a simple question, again for you people to prattle on endlessly about science and religion to be so compatable, you go to extraordinary lengths to defeat your own argument.
The little girl’s question has absolutely nothing to do with hinduism or any other strawman you bring up.
Again, it’s not that difficult a concept to grasp allmendream.
Either evolution is God’s intelligent design and children should be privvy to this or not. The lengths you go to deny this make it crystal clear whom has the weak faith here.
A Christian person understands science taught with a Godly perspective is what leads to a moral undertaking. Something sorely lacking in our society as it is and something that escapes evolution apologists that require the fraud of peer review of like-minded God deniers to prop up their weak faith in Godless science.
One who goes to extraordinary lengths to hide God from children for the sake of godless science and calls himself a Christian, then has the audacity to call creationsists liars when their liberal position gets exposed, has no place on FR, IMHO.
Not only can physicists not explain why we don't feel the effects of these whiplash-speeds...
The Earth is moving at thousands of miles per hour (67,000 to be exact), and your comment is the most ludicrous thing I've ever read.
You do know that the moon rotates around the Earth at around 2300 miles per hour, right? Did the astronauts on the moon get "whiplash"? And even in a geocentric universe, Mars has an orbital velocity of tens of thousands of miles per hour. Do you think NASA could have landed multiple probes and rovers there if they were so off in their calculations of orbital velocity? Did the Mars landers experience "whiplash"?
Only in creationist apologetics do we find this kind of absolute silliness.
GGG shouldn’t be surprised because anytime you’re involved it always strays off the rails.
And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see this occured long before I showed up.
But then no one ever confused you with a rocket scientist!
I stayed on topic until the personal attacks and insults started.
Your argument is a strawman, as are most evo arguments. The whole point is that no one feels the whiplash such high speeds would suggest! This shows evidence that there is more involved in the "simple" laws of motion and relativity than simplistic secular science can explain.
Only in creationist apologetics do we find this kind of absolute silliness.
We're talking good, hard, common-sense science, here, not apologetics. If the evo can't stand the heat from the controversy, he should get out of the kitchen. There's plenty of failing evo journals and sites out there for the amusement of the libs, where posters don't have the courage to reexamine the "sacred" principles of "science"; where posters are glad to consider the "case closed", and continue in the vain of building on errors.
FreeRepublic has higher standards than that, and the liberal "science" of tenured socialist professors doesn't get a free pass here!
You're in error if you think that physics does not explain why feelings of acceleration don't occur on planets and moving bodies like they do in automobiles.
The astronauts are traveling right now at mach 25. They are not getting whiplash.
Do you seriously think the engineers at NASA don't know why?
Its obvious you've never even looked into the explanation.
We're talking good, hard, common-sense science, here, not apologetics.
Geocentrism is not good, hard, common-sense science. It hasn't been for several hundred years.
If the evo can't stand the heat from the controversy, he should get out of the kitchen.
Geocentrism has nothing to do with evolution; further proof that you have no idea what you're talking about.
FreeRepublic has higher standards than that, and the liberal "science" of tenured socialist professors doesn't get a free pass here!
I've been here a long time, and I know for a fact that most Freepers are aware that the Earth revolves around the sun.
and
Gerardus Bouw's site is more Biblically-based and the collection of Biblical Astronomer publications offers both biblical and scientific argument for geocentrism as well as other astronomical arguments for Biblical events.
There was a time not too long ago when I would have agreed with you on that. Now I'm not so sure.
And that's not a good thing.
Sorry her findings are not as conclusive as you’d like them to be.
From the conclusion at a website quoting her own words...
‘Kenyon felt that “any adjustment is possible according to what one wishes to adjust it to; if the chronology is too long, one can say that it has been inflated by making events successive which are really contemporary; if too short, one has only to say that generations have been omitted “
Gee - sounds like an evolutionists quote even though she claims to be a christian. Not much different from the quotes we see around here (esp. from ‘fence-straddlers’)...
I’ll still stand by the statement - the archeological evidence shows 100% support for the history in the Bible. Jericho is an actual city from the past no matter which age-dating methods are used!
One last item even the liberal site Wikipedia supports the findings of Garstang and (after Kenyon) Bryant Wood too. It’s really just more arguing over dating methods so why am I not impressed nor surprised.
If this is your standard, then The Iliad is also 100% accurate with archeological evidence.
If the mere mention of Jericho satisfies the requirements, then one could say Troy "is an acutal city from the past no matter which age-dating methods are used."
I want to see the model of your solar system. I want to know if Mars and the other planets still orbit the sun, orbit the earth, or orbit both with the sun and Earth acting in a binary system.
Those pages are short on facts and long on comedy.
It is spiritually perilous to deny Christ.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.– Romans 1:20-32
And they try to carve away their search space by the principle of “methodological naturalism” - they only look at that which is knowable, measurable, observable, and predictable.
Officially this is to keep science out of theology but alas some do theology under the color of science anyway, e.g. Dawkins, and vice versa, science under the color of theology.
More to the point, man is small minded and easily distracted. Look at how we rubber-neck at traffic pileups or celebrities and how easily the press and politicians influence the masses (“watch the birdie.”)
Likewise here, the Christian who is a scientist must be exceedingly alert because the nature of his work requires him to focus on the creature. He must be ever aware of the warning in the above Scripture:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.
Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?
Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? – Isaiah 29:13-16
Their assignment, their challenge, their personal risk is greater than I can imagine. And yet I know that God would not put them there if they were not up to the task.
I join in prayer for each and every one of them!
To God be the glory!
Kenyon was discredited - even on wikipedia.
So why reference her?
Oh, that’s right, it supports your conclusion!!!
Yes they do.
"I want to see the model of your solar system. I want to know if Mars and the other planets still orbit the sun, orbit the earth, or orbit both with the sun and Earth acting in a binary system."
You want to see or you want to know? Can you know if you see? Did you look?
"Those pages are short on facts and long on comedy."
You are short on facts and long on comedy.
I would be very interested to know what your cosmological model is, allmendream. I can't figure it out. You say you are a Christian. And yet you seem (from your writings over a long period of time) committed to the materialist/physicalist/naturalist doctrinal position. I do not know how it is possible to reconcile the implicit worldview of that model with the Christian worldview.
Your preferred doctrine excludes the realm of the Spirit in principle. It asserts the complete "causal closure of the physical," that all that exists is exclusively material or physical. It claims that the universe had a purely naturalistic cause, thereby denying it can have had an origin in the divine creative act in the beginning. I.e., God is NOT the Creator; Nature creates herself. Again, on principle. That the principle itself is on shaky logical ground doesn't seem to trouble you. You just seem to accept it, as if holy writ.
In short, if you have a theology, it seems you may have strained it through a filter of scientistic presuppositions to which you are passionately devoted, but which seem (to me anyway) fundamentally irrational.
But of course, I could be mistaken about this, and may well be. Which is why I said I'd be interested in a better understanding of your fundamental cosmological view. That would probably clear up the matter for me.
In the biggest picture you can manage, what does your universe look like? Does it look anything like the description given in the Holy Scriptures, principally in Genesis 1–2 and the Gospel of St. John which specifically address cosmological issues?
Christians may disagree about the details; but what they all have in common is commitment to the idea that Holy Scripture is the bearer of the Word of God to man, divine truth told truly, but not exhaustively.
Where do you stand in this matter allmendream? How do you, as a Christian, reconcile such mutually exclusive tendencies in your own life and thought?
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.