In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheTrueCentrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
The fossil record consistently shows abrupt appearance, stasis and variation within. Yet to be reconciled is how long the dinosaurr soft tissue can survive.

Is it your position soft tissue can survive 65 million years?
Click to expand...
What does dinosaurs tissue have to do with anything? The fact they were here 65 million years ago disproves a literal Genesis because there is millions of years in there between dinosaurs and the first species we would call “human”
 
Hunter24 said:
What does dinosaurs tissue have to do with anything? The fact they were here 65 million years ago disproves a literal Genesis because there is millions of years in there between dinosaurs and the first species we would call “human”
Click to expand...
Alot. The questions stands.
 
buffalo said:
Alot. The questions stands.
Click to expand...
No a dinosaurs tissues cannot. However they did leave fossils that give us evidence to their skeletal structure and the time period in which they lived. Now please explain yourself :confused:
 
Hunter24 said:
No a dinosaurs tissues cannot. However they did leave fossils that give us evidence to their skeletal structure and the time period in which they lived. Now please explain yourself :confused:
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Soft stretchy dino tissue has been found (more than once now) that by conventional dating methods is 65 million years old Now there is research showing it is impossible to last that long. The question now becomes - which is right?
 
Hunter24 said:
Are u trying to suggest the Dinosaurs lived much more recently? I don’t understand how finding preserved dinosaur tissue relates.
Click to expand...
Either they did or soft tissue survives magnitudes of years longer.

But here is some other research:

Isciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm

RECENT C-14 DATING OF FOSSILS INCLUDING DINOSAUR BONE COLLAGEN. Are the results a confirmation of rapid formation of the geologic column as modern sedimentology studies have predicted?

AUTHORS: Josef Holzschuh, Jean de Pontcharra, Hugh Miller

ABSTRACT: The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal Science. Its geologic location was the Hell Creek Formation in the State of Montana, United States of America. When it was learned in 2005that Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered by the Glendive (MT) Dinosaur & Fossil Museum, Hugh Miller asked and received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for C-14 testing of any bone collagen that might be extracted. Indeed both bones contained collagen and conventional dates of 30,890 ± 380 radiocarbon years (RC) for the Triceratops and 23,170 ±170 RC years for the Hadrosaur were obtained using the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS). Total organic carbon and/or dinosaur bone bio-apatite was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for megafauna.
 
I hope you know that Mary Schweitzer, the discoverer of this, has denounced any use of her dinosaur find to support a “young earth” hypothesis. All this suggests is we humans do not yet fully understand the process of focilization, or the biochemistry of a dinosaur. This T Rex was still found at the proper depth. This is a moot point.
 
Hunter24 said:
I hope you know that Mary Schweitzer, the discoverer of this, has denounced any use of her dinosaur find to support a “young earth” hypothesis. All this suggests is we humans do not yet fully understand the process of focilization, or the biochemistry of a dinosaur. This T Rex was still found at the proper depth. This is a moot point.
Click to expand...
I am full well aware of her statements. It is not a moot point. Research will have to be overturned that shows the limits of soft tissue survivability.

By itself the debate will continue. But consider the carbon dating evidence. Now you have to claim both independent lines are wrong. Could be, but not looking real good.
 
buffalo said:
I am full well aware of her statements. It is not a moot point. Research will have to be overturned that shows the limits of soft tissue survivability.

By itself the debate will continue. But consider the carbon dating evidence. Now you have to claim both independent lines are wrong. Could be, but not looking real good.
Click to expand...
While the tissue sample is very interesting it’s likely that the foscilization of the bone prevented decay causing bacteria from reaching the tissue, causing it to decay at an unimaginably slow pace. Indeed Though, that is a major breakthrough in paleontology.

As for the carbon dates, it is possible they are corrupted, likely by the uneven decay of the tissue. If it is correct however that would be amazing. Still though, the dinosaurs are not the oldest foscilized life on earth. Not by a long shot. This is very intreging an I wil watch for developments. I do not claim that a litteral Genesis would be impossible for an ID, only that there is no evidence to support it. If these findings are further confirmed however, that may some day change.
 
Hunter24 said:
I hope you know that Mary Schweitzer, the discoverer of this, has denounced any use of her dinosaur find to support a “young earth” hypothesis. All this suggests is we humans do not yet fully understand the process of focilization, or the biochemistry of a dinosaur. This T Rex was still found at the proper depth. This is a moot point.
Click to expand...
Not a moot point.

It indicates that we haven’t a clear understanding of how old the world around us operates.

I submit that without an understanding of why this soft tissue is here, no one is qualified to make any claim of age.
 
Hi, Gcharles,

I certainly hope you appreciate the charity that Blacksword demonstrated in that last post!

Being totally outrageous, I guess, is a personal choice - but, making totally outrageous statements… well … that will never do! :rolleyes:

While Catholics and Mormons agree on the holiness of life, and that marriage is between one man and one woman - that may be totality of common belief - at least as far as I know. The Catholic Church has never taught that we evolve into God.

No one on this thread has said that Genesis is incorrect. As far as I can tell, the actual time frame used is open to interpretation … and this is also the teaching of the Catholic Church. We are free to believe it was done in billions and billions of years, or in a week - so long as we attribute all of creation to the purposeful and loving Hand of God.

Here are two encyclicals on this topic that are worth reading:

.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13provi.htm

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM

And while those two links may not be a substitute for an after dinner brandy … here is one that is much shorter:

holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/stevehemler/lifeslittlelearnings/27.asp

As you will see, there is no support, in the teachings of the Catholic Church, for the positions you have stated. In other words, as long as you put our loving God as the author of all creation, you can take the Genisis account of creation either literally or figuratively. And you can do this without insulting others on this thread. 🙂

God bless
gcharles said:
According to what many of you believe then I can assume the Mormons are right. We will evolve into God.
Actually I am challenging anyone to give me empirical evidence of species evolution. You will not find any. You say the bible is the word of God and then you say Genesis is incorrect. God clearly dictated to Moses that everything was created of its own kind. Please enter yojur evidence. When you figure it out there isn’t any then you are responsible. You can contact the Vatican if you want. The early church never taught this. If you disagree with God you’re wrong. I’m not the only Catholic who believes this. Go to the Kolbe Center and find out. If Genesis is wrong why would you keep reading. We say the Bible isn’t a history book. Why should I believe Jesus rose from the dead?
Click to expand...
 
Hi, Buffalo,

This is not only above my head - it hit the wall, bounced back and I still missed it! 😃

While finding anything that would qualify as soft tissue in a T. Rex fossil is truly amazing - was the actual fossil itself dated? Just curious if the same sample would reveal two different dates - one for the bone now a fossil and the other for the soft tissue still being soft tissue?

Now, as I understand it, T. res has been identified as having lived somewhere between 67 - 65 million years ago. And there certainly appears to be a tremendous amount of data supporting that and the rock layers these fossils have been found in. One sample is just that - and, from a statistical standpoint, it would seem to be an outlier or an oddity. No one should be drawing conclusions from an insufficient sample size.

This really seems to be an interesting item but of no real consequence to the larger picture of evolution. But, as I said, this really isn’t my area.

God bless
buffalo said:
Either they did or soft tissue survives magnitudes of years longer.

But here is some other research:

Isciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm

RECENT C-14 DATING OF FOSSILS INCLUDING DINOSAUR BONE COLLAGEN. Are the results a confirmation of rapid formation of the geologic column as modern sedimentology studies have predicted?

AUTHORS: Josef Holzschuh, Jean de Pontcharra, Hugh Miller

ABSTRACT: The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal Science. Its geologic location was the Hell Creek Formation in the State of Montana, United States of America. When it was learned in 2005that Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered by the Glendive (MT) Dinosaur & Fossil Museum, Hugh Miller asked and received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for C-14 testing of any bone collagen that might be extracted. Indeed both bones contained collagen and conventional dates of 30,890 ± 380 radiocarbon years (RC) for the Triceratops and 23,170 ±170 RC years for the Hadrosaur were obtained using the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS). Total organic carbon and/or dinosaur bone bio-apatite was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for megafauna.
Click to expand...
 
Hunter24 said:
While the tissue sample is very interesting it’s likely that the foscilization of the bone prevented decay causing bacteria from reaching the tissue, causing it to decay at an unimaginably slow pace. Indeed Though, that is a major breakthrough in paleontology.

As for the carbon dates, it is possible they are corrupted, likely by the uneven decay of the tissue. If it is correct however that would be amazing. Still though, the dinosaurs are not the oldest foscilized life on earth. Not by a long shot. This is very intreging an I wil watch for developments. I do not claim that a litteral Genesis would be impossible for an ID, only that there is no evidence to support it. If these findings are further confirmed however, that may some day change.
Click to expand...
Yes, it bears watching.
 
Blacksword said:
Sigh…do you ever consider, for even a moment, that maybe the relevant scientists who have spent 7-10 years or more obtaining a doctorate degree studying this stuff, and then decades of research and work in these fields, maybe know a lot more about it than you do?
Click to expand...
Everyone knows a lot more than I do. 🙂
However, what is more important is to realize that the presented evidence in a published research paper must warrant the individual chosen conclusion.
 
Hi, Grannymh,

In theory, this sounds good. Ah, but it is the practice, just like tasting the pudding, that tells one that everything really much be checked!

For example, The British Medical Journal is a peer reviewed professional journal - any article that appears in this has been read by experts - and approved. A false report was made that vaccinations cause autism - and only after years of research (and many children dying from their parents refusal to have them vaccinated) did the truth finally come out. Vaccines do not cause autism. Here is the link: news.discovery.com/human/vaccine-autism-doctor-accused-of-deliberate-fraud.html

So, just exercise caution in what one believes from the scientific community. The assumption is that these are good and honest men working for the betterment of society - usually, this is true - but, there are some pesky exceptions.

God bless
grannymh said:
Everyone knows a lot more than I do. 🙂
However, what is more important is to realize that the presented evidence in a published research paper must warrant the individual chosen conclusion.
Click to expand...
 
tqualey said:
Hi, Grannymh,

In theory, this sounds good. Ah, but it is the practice, just like tasting the pudding, that tells one that everything really much be checked!

For example, The British Medical Journal is a peer reviewed professional journal - any article that appears in this has been read by experts - and approved. A false report was made that vaccinations cause autism - and only after years of research (and many children dying from their parents refusal to have them vaccinated) did the truth finally come out. Vaccines do not cause autism. Here is the link: news.discovery.com/human/vaccine-autism-doctor-accused-of-deliberate-fraud.html

So, just exercise caution in what one believes from the scientific community. The assumption is that these are good and honest men working for the betterment of society - usually, this is true - but, there are some pesky exceptions.

God bless
Click to expand...
What I am saying is that in order to defend the Catholic teaching on human origin, one has to be aware that the specific methods and materials in research going back before human history are based on assumptions and estimates and choices as to how to define a population mathematically and within the limits of some amazing computer programming. I am out of breath with that long sentence.😉

Too often, Catholics are intimidated by those mountains of evidence against the Catholic doctrine of Monogenism. They need to remember to ask what is the real make-up of those lofty mountains.

In science, the validity of the evidence depends on methods and materials. When it comes to human origin dating thousands of years going backwards, those mountains contain anthills of assumptions. Don’t misunderstand me. Assumptions can be valid in regard to the limited, particular conclusion. But assumptions cannot lead to an universal conclusion (denying the possibility of two sole founders of humankind). There is too much open space when one tries to scientifically check each happening of every day and every place on planet earth during pre-human history.
 
tqualey said:
Hi, Grannymh,

In theory, this sounds good. Ah, but it is the practice, just like tasting the pudding, that tells one that everything really much be checked!

For example, The British Medical Journal is a peer reviewed professional journal - any article that appears in this has been read by experts - and approved. A false report was made that vaccinations cause autism - and only after years of research (and many children dying from their parents refusal to have them vaccinated) did the truth finally come out. Vaccines do not cause autism. Here is the link: news.discovery.com/human/vaccine-autism-doctor-accused-of-deliberate-fraud.html

So, just exercise caution in what one believes from the scientific community. The assumption is that these are good and honest men working for the betterment of society - usually, this is true - but, there are some pesky exceptions.

God bless
Click to expand...
What I am saying is that in order to defend the Catholic teaching on human origin, one has to be aware that the specific methods and materials in research going back before human history are based on assumptions and estimates and choices as to how to define a population mathematically and within the limits of some amazing computer programming. I am out of breath with that long sentence.

Too often, Catholics are intimidated by those mountains of evidence against the Catholic doctrine of Monogenism. They need to remember to ask what is the real make-up of those lofty mountains.

In science, the validity of the evidence depends on methods and materials. When it comes to human origin dating thousands of years going backwards, those mountains contain anthills of assumptions. Don’t misunderstand me. Assumptions can be valid in regard to the limited, particular conclusion. But assumptions cannot lead to an universal conclusion (denying the possibility of two sole founders of humankind). There is too much open space when one tries to scientifically check each happening of every day and every place on planet earth during pre-human history.
 
grannymh said:
Everyone knows a lot more than I do. 🙂
However, what is more important is to realize that the presented evidence in a published research paper must warrant the individual chosen conclusion.
Click to expand...
Blacksword did you ever think God knows more than the scientists. Don’t worry gannymh they had the same gnostcs way back. Blacksword there is absolutely no empirical evidence to even call speciation evolution. Even Richard Dawkins admits speciation evolution is only a postulate. In the book of Genesis God says he created the creatures each in their own kind. You must think quite highly of yourself.

If you wish to answer Blacksword submit your empirical evidence for speciation evolution. This is a challenge.
 
Concerning the truth concerning autism is a little misleading. As you should know these shots contain mercury. If you give one shot at a time and wait to give another one it ok. It’s causing autism when they give 18 shots at once with a lot of mercury that causes autism. I got directly from a medical person in that field. That all get their kids shots but only one at a time.
 
vz if the bible says 930 years then its 930 years. What else do you believe in the bible. If you would read your bible you would find that God appointed man to live 120 years. Scientists just reported that under perfect conditions man should live 120 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top