Scientists Find Soft Tissue in T-Rex Bone

[CreosMary]

A biblical hermeneutics based on the myriad translations available today would be fruitless, as they differ on the translation of the first use of yom in the phrase “yom echad”, rendered in various versions as ‘one day’, ‘day one’, ‘a first day’ , or ‘the first day’. Those that do agree on this phrase’s translation will typically then disagree on the exact phrasing or meaning of the other six days. 1

     The use of the surrounding       context, however, is a useful approach, as is also       researching the original Hebrew text.        As pointed out by many creationists, the use of       ‘morning’ and ‘evening’ as delimiters is a       convincing argument for interpretation of *yom*       as a 24 hour day, along with the associated numbering       of the days, which always means a 24 hour day in       Scripture.  Convincing,       that is, to those with an open mind and no hidden       agenda.               

     It is rarely noted that the       syntax of sentences containing *yom* in Genesis 1       & 2 is variable and unusual. For each day the       literal translation from Hebrew is:  

     Gen        1:5                one day

     Gen        1:8                a second day

     Gen        1:13              a third day

     Gen        1:19              a fourth day

     Gen        1:23              a fifth day

     Gen        1:31              the sixth day

     Gen        2:2                the seventh day

     Note that the correct translation       of ‘*yom echad*’ is ‘one day’ and the       phrasing for the other 6 days is not exactly the same       as for Gen 1:5.  The       form of the Gen 1:5 sentence is associated with a       definition or equation, as in        ‘3 and 4 is 7’.        This is the first time that a day is quantified       as : evening and morning.

                 So we read ‘evening and morning is/equals one       day’. Gen 1:5 is actually defining what *yom*       means in unequivocal mathematical terms, as if aware       of the potential ambiguity in the word’s usage and       spelling out its sense when first used. There is no       escape from the meaning intended in the source       language:

     An evening and a morning = 1 day.          A simple sentence with a simple message: The       Genesis *yom* is a single 24 hour calendar day.               

     The literal sequence of days       first defines the meaning of yom as 24 hours long,       then indicates a sequence of ordinary days (as defined       in Gen 1:5) up to the sixth and seventh days, which       are specially noted by the definite article for the       creation of man and the day God stopped creating from       nothing.   cont..

 

[CreosMary]

The Torah scholar Nachmanides says the word ‘erev’, translated as ‘evening’, has as root the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet - which means chaos, mixture, disorder. Evening is derived from ‘erev’, because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The root’s literal meaning is ‘there was disorder’. The word for ‘morning’ - ‘boker’ - has just the opposite root meaning: orderly, able to be discerned. Each day represents a sequence of steps that progress from disorder to order. This analysis of the core or primitive meanings of the Hebrew words clarifies two problems of theistic revisionists:

• There is no evening and day phrase in Gen 2:2 for the seventh day of rest…… because the creation of order from chaos was complete !
• The absence of the Sun – a light source - for the first three days is of no significance to the root translation !
  

     Many       translators use ‘first’ for *echad*, but       there is a qualitative difference, Nachmanides says,       between "one" and "first." One is       absolute; first is comparative        On Day       One, time was created. The use of "first"       implies comparison - an existing series. But there was       no existing series. Day One was all there was, the       very beginning of the Jewish calendar.               
  
     There are at least two important       lessons here.

• **When Scriptural meaning is important (and when is it not?) the source language must be used and interpreted in the deepest literal sense when possible (the root stem of derived words). **
• **There is no wiggle room in the length of the Genesis ‘day’. From the very start it’s defined as 24 hours long, anticipating those modernists who would have it ambiguous. **
  Note: Of 15 Bibles sampled only two translated the Hebrew source correctly (2 of 15), the American Standard Bible and Young’s Literal Translation. cont.......

 

[CreosMary]

Conclusion

     Theistic evolution is rejected by both sides of its       attempted dualistic embrace.

     William of Ockham's razor calls for science to 'cut       cleanly', by eliminating extraneous contributions to       its knowledge base and choose the simplest option. To       today's materialist that choice would be evolution.       But at least the Darwinists recognize this principle       of contradiction between evolution and religion by       dispensing with any reference to religion, God or       special creation. Theistic evolution desperately seeks       the secular approval of the scientific establishment,       but attempts to somehow cling desparately to spiritual       values. As they are unable to face the ultimate       nihilism that evolution implies, their equivocation is       also found contemptible by Darwin's followers.       Ockham's principle applied to theistic evolution       requires a choice that the thevolutionist is unwilling       to make.

     The objective spiritual side of Catholic tradition       realizes that this unholy alliance in thevolution is       not a merger of equals. In the face of (m)any       conflicts, it is the immutable Word of God which must       yield to the fickle words of Darwin or Dawkins. This       cannot stand. Of all the Scripture cited above against       thevolutionary ideas, perhaps these two verses best       summarize the case:

     *No servant can serve two       masters; for either he will hate the one and love the       other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise       the other.* Luke 16:13

     *I know your works; I know that       you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either       cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot       nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.* Rev       3:15,16

     What we witness today is an attempt at delayed       compensation, a reparation by modern theologians for       the perceived error and inherited guilt of the       Galilean controversy. There is no comparison between       that 17th century misunderstood event and the heresy       of accepting both evolution and special creation as an       individual world view compatible with salvation. In       some future Church council, hopefully in our lifetime,       thevolution will be recognized and declared *anathema*.       Until then, we pray that the evolutionists within the       Church may come to believe the Word of God as written,       and return to the faith in special creation handed       down to us by the Church fathers.

God Bless

 

[tuopaolo]

Ghosty:

That you believe that does not give you the right to sling such slanderous labels as “atheist” at people who have devoted a LOT of time here to defending the Church.

He didn’t call you an atheist. He used the word “atheistic.” I think that in context, it was clear what he meant.

What I can’t accept is you casting aspersions at those within the Church who would gladly lay down the theory of evolution if it was Dogmatically opposed by the Magisterium, but who in the mean time use the allowances the Church has given us to absolutely destroy atheistic arguments through the use of reason.

That you profess your loyalty to the word of God over the word of science is to be applauded but one of your fellow evolutionists in this thread has said that he accepts evolution as a “fact.” So it would appear that not everyone would abandon it like you would, which is unfortunate.

Those who depart from tradition when it comes to evolution also seem to have a tendency to depart from tradition when it comes to other things like the perpetual virginity of Mary, understanding of Scripture, homosexuality, etc. This is not proof that evolution is wrong, but it should be cause for concern.

Besides the problem of Christ being the son of a savage beast, there is another problem with evolution. According to evolution or those versions with some alleged marginal compatibility with the Catholic faith, Adam would have been conceived in the womb of a savage beast, a non-human being, an animal not endowed with reason.

But it is intrinsically evil to effect conception in or implant a human being in a genetically foreign embryo. That’s why surrogate motherhood is wrong. In the case of Adam you have not merely the conception and implantation of a human being in a genetically foreign womb, but in a womb that isn’t even human. We know that God does not do evil and so we know that this aspect of evolution ideology is wrong and untrue.

 

[CreosMary]

tuopaolo:

He didn’t call you an atheist. He used the word “atheistic.” I think that in context, it was clear what he meant.

That you profess your loyalty to the word of God over the word of science is to be applauded but one of your fellow evolutionists in this thread has said that he accepts evolution as a “fact.” So it would appear that not everyone would abandon it like you would, which is unfortunate.

Those who depart from tradition when it comes to evolution also seem to have a tendency to depart from tradition when it comes to other things like the perpetual virginity of Mary, understanding of Scripture, homosexuality, etc. This is not proof that evolution is wrong, but it should be cause for concern.

Besides the problem of Christ being the son of a savage beast, there is another problem with evolution. According to evolution or those versions with some alleged marginal compatibility with the Catholic faith, Adam would have been conceived in the womb of a savage beast, a non-human being, an animal not endowed with reason.

But it is intrinsically evil to effect conception in or implant a human being in a genetically foreign embryo. That’s why surrogate motherhood is wrong. In the case of Adam you have not merely the conception and implantation of a human being in a genetically foreign womb, but in a womb that isn’t even human. We know that God does not do evil and so we know that this aspect of evolution ideology is wrong and untrue.

Good point dear tuoPaulo another reason, but will they accept it or blindly follow mans fallible science?
Tis faith and the fruits thereof that speak. I have just been attacked on a totally different thread of a totally different issue by a poster here so it seems that there is an ‘agenda’ to which I am yet to discover.
God Bless

 

[Ghosty]

But it is intrinsically evil to effect conception in or implant a human being in a genetically foreign embryo. That’s why surrogate motherhood is wrong. In the case of Adam you have not merely the conception and implantation of a human being in a genetically foreign womb, but in a womb that isn’t even human.

No, no. It would be genetically human down to every detail. The soul, the house of true reason, is not a genetic thing. The soul is a gift from God, immediately created by Him. Assuming that Adam was born from another creature and his body was not made directly from clay, which is something I assume but in a purely casual stance, his parents would have had the same DNA type as ours, but would have lacked a human soul. They would have likely possessed an animal soul, which is capable of love, thinking, problem solving, and all other emotions beyond a willed, reasoned striving for God, albeit in a much more limited fashion than a human soul.

Remember, Jesus was not just man, but was also God. God was carried in the womb of a much lesser creature, infinitely further removed from Him than an animal soul is from ours. Despite the fact that He carried within Him the fullness of God, the fullness of the Creator of All, He was able to humble Himself to be carried in the womb of a simple creature. In fact, if Adam is a prefiguring of Christ, as we are so often taught, would it not be fitting that he be carried and born in a similar manner?

 

[CreosMary]

Ghosty:

No, no. It would be genetically human down to every detail. The soul, the house of true reason, is not a genetic thing. The soul is a gift from God, immediately created by Him.

Assuming that Adam was born from another creature and his body was not made directly from clay, which is something I assume but in a purely casual stance

,

Oh Dear Ghosty So thiestic of you and so unremarkable to imagine Almight God’s power

his parents would have had the same DNA type as ours, but would have lacked a human soul. They would have likely possessed an animal soul, which is capable of love, thinking, problem solving, and all other emotions beyond a willed, reasoned striving for God, albeit in a much more limited fashion than a human soul.

You speak like you were there and so lacking in Faith to believe that God can do all this without mimicky and slow-train learing

Remember, Jesus was not just man, but was also God. God was carried in the womb of a

much lesser creature

Ave Maria Gratia Plena Dominus tecum Benedictus Tuum

, infinitely further removed from Him than an animal soul is from ours. Despite the fact that He carried within Him the fullness of God, the fullness of the Creator of All, He was able to humble Himself to be carried in the womb of a simple creature. In fact, if Adam is a prefiguring of Christ, as we are so often taught, would it not be fitting that he be carried and born in a similar manner?

What a load of really fertile garden manure,
God Bless you

 

[Ghosty]

You speak like you were there and so lacking in Faith to believe that God can do all this without mimicky and slow-train learing

I merely put forth a sound theory, which you apparently have no means to take apart on your own. And when did I say that I lacked the faith in God to believe He could do it in the literalist manner described in Genesis? You are NOT listening to people, most espescially myself.

What a load of really fertile garden manure,
God Bless you

You apparently lack any sense of charity. I’m done responding to you. In fact, sadly you’ll be the first person added to my ignore list.

I’ll say a prayer for you. With comments like that you are getting dangerously close to the kind of behavior that has gotten numerous people suspended and banned.

 

[vern_humphrey]

CreosMary:

What a load of really fertile garden manure,
God Bless you

That is hardly a Christian response. Shame on you.

 

[CreosMary]

I must apologise if i seemed to offend anyone
To assume that Adam was the result of embyonic implantation into a foriegn beast does not sound very Christian to me let alone rational or have any basis in faith or reason.
When others attack me on other threads which have nothing to do with this matter in hand, I am wont to get a little upset.
Maybe the theory some rest Creation on needs really good garden manure to produce thier concept of life.
Now a murder has been carried out in Florida with the laws approval, this is what comes from seeing man as a worthless beast.
God’s creation is very good both physical and soul
God Bless

 

[catholic2]

catholic2:

I’m on my second read. Sounds convincing, but I am still looking for holes. Seems to me someone with a PHD regardless of what field he has it in should have some credibility. He has at least shown that he has a modicum of intelligence and could look at specific subjects of interest to him with a practiced discerning eye. However, I’ll look for papers from someone with a geological background for the Puka (Hawaiian word for holes) .

 

[vern_humphrey]

CreosMary:

I must apologise if i seemed to offend anyone
To assume that Adam was the result of embyonic implantation into a foriegn beast does not sound very Christian to me let alone rational or have any basis in faith or reason.

I haven’t seen anyone here claim that “Adam was the result of embyonic implantation into a foriegn beast.”

The position many take is that there is simply no religious reason for a Catholic to believe against science in this matter.

CreosMary:

When others attack me on other threads which have nothing to do with this matter in hand, I am wont to get a little upset.

Why do you claim that others attack you?

CreosMary:

Maybe the theory some rest Creation on needs really good garden manure to produce thier concept of life…

And then come out with remarks like this?

CreosMary:

Now a murder has been carried out in Florida with the laws approval, this is what comes from seeing man as a worthless beast…

I don’t think you can blame this on evolution!!

CreosMary:

God’s creation is very good both physical and soul
God Bless…

Nobody ever said it wasn’t.

 

[CreosMary]

Dear Vern,
I disagree, the concept of Evolution has contributed massivley to the idea that man is dispensable and only useful for what he can do. I cut n’ pasted a really good example of these effects some posts back, they are worth a read. (thiestic evolution)
The reference to garden manure was a pun that you missed, as theory of evolution suggests life grew out of a murky tidal pool so life grows out of good soil as are my chilli’s at the moment, the pumpkin is doing well also.
God Bless

 

[vern_humphrey]

CreosMary:

Dear Vern,
I disagree, the concept of Evolution has contributed massivley to the idea that man is dispensable and only useful for what he can do. I cut n’ pasted a really good example of these effects some posts back, they are worth a read. (thiestic evolution)

Forgive me if I’m wrong, Mary, but the Theory of Evolution (and evolution itself) had not been developed when people were forced to fight wild beast in the arena.

There was no inkling of evolution when people could be executed for hunting the King’s deer, or cutting young fruit trees.

The Aztecs did not have evolution in the 1450s when they sacrificed tens of thousands of prisoners at the dedication of the Great Temple of Tenochtitlan.

In fact, when Darwin wrote, people in this country were routinely convicted in local courts and hanged by the county sheriff – in public.

The respect for life INCREASED for a long time – until Roe vs Wade made it legal to kill unborn children in the womb.

If you want something to blame for fostering the idea that human life is disposable, blame abortion, not evolution.

CreosMary:

The reference to garden manure was a pun that you missed, as theory of evolution suggests life grew out of a murky tidal pool so life grows out of good soil as are my chilli’s at the moment, the pumpkin is doing well also.
God Bless

You mistake the theory of evolution for a theory of creation. Nothing in the theory of evolution, per se, treats the origins of life.

 

[Ghosty]

Nothing in the theory of evolution, per se, treats the origins of life.

An important point that many people miss, it seems. In an absolute sense, science has no answer for the absolute origins of anything, although the closer it gets, the closer it gets to admitting God, or at least an uncaused cause. That’s why Fr. LeMaitre’s work is so important.

 

[CreosMary]

If you want something to blame for fostering the idea that human life is disposable, blame abortion, not evolutio

Legalised and approved abortion** is** a direct consequence of the meaningless of life supported by thiestic and althiestic pro-evolutionary’s.
Please look at the world around you and see the fruits of Darwinism and thiestic evolution.
I do not say the world has always been a happy place as you suggest by mentioning past historic infamy’s but you must also realise that Pre-Christian Rome was as pagan as the world is today and saw the world in 'long age 'ways
Please trust in the Church and her enduring ways
God Bless
Pray for the Holy Father

 

[CreosMary]

You mistake the theory of evolution for a theory of creation. Nothing in the theory of evolution, per se, treats the origins of life.

Literal Creation IS NOT A THEORY and still has the seal of Leo XIII, It is for the Church fact until…proved otherwise. (yeah right)
As I have said before NO Pope has issued Dogma on the subject since Leo XIII
God Bless

 

[c3dlc]

PROBLEM: offensive link
ACTION: link deleted

 

[CreosMary]

c3dlc:

quote of offensive link removed

Dear Friend,
A; I cannot read French and
B; I find the initial image rather rude so I would not trust this site even if I knew what it was all about.
Is this a distraction?
God loves ya’

 

[Norwich]

Ghosty:

An important point that many people miss, it seems. In an absolute sense, science has no answer for the absolute origins of anything, although the closer it gets, the closer it gets to admitting God, or at least an uncaused cause. That’s why Fr. LeMaitre’s work is so important.

The assumption is of course that science can admit the existance of God. But science is simply a tool of mans making used to try and understand how the wonderful works of God are accomplished. Theologians try to interpret the words of God, science try’s to interpret the actions of God. Whether the scientists themselves agree with this is immaterial, the more they look into the wonders of the world around us the more they see the infinate hand of God. The only dispute is whether you call it the hand of God,or nature, or an accident of the universe, we believe it to be God, some scientists believe it to be God, others believe it to be nature, what odds?

Creomary hangs all her belief on Genesis and the first seven days. Theologians will tell you that the Pentateuch was actually written by a minimum of three tribal groups often reffered to as the “J” “E” & “P” texts. “J” being the southern tribe within Judah in the 9th century BC and whose title is derived from Yahweh which was transposed into the German Jahweh in the “Documentary Hypothesis” by Graf and Wellhausen during the 19th Century. The “E” is a derivative of Eloham which was the language of the Hebrews in northern Judah and finally the “P” is ascribed to the “Preistly” society that existed about the 7th Century BC.

Even Genesis if you read it properly has two accounts of the creation, Gen 1; 1-31 and Gen 2; 4-19. the first thought to have been written in “J” text the second in “E”.

None of these texts detracts from Gods word, what they do do however, is place into context the understanding of Gods word to the people of the time. It would be somewhat difficult for them to understand the science of genetics, geology, palientology and all the other ology’s we are privilaged to understand in this modern era.

I find it very sad that people can be so blind to Gods wonders by reading a text that may be 11,000 years old and not looking beyond the words to the miracles that God has wrought through time and space. These are people who instead of revelling in the shear brilliance and magnitude of what God has done, and trying to understand how he did it (something we will never fully do but are still able to try) they hide behind words and texts.

God gave man freedom of thought, freedom to either follow the letter of the law without thought, to apply such law irrespective of the world or his people in it, like Pharasees they read and pontificate but don’t understand, or, the freedom to look at Gods world, to marvel at his wisdom, to acknowledge his beautiful design and to try and understand.

To look at evolution, to wonder at its infinate variation that still lead to Gods people, to study the intricacies of DNA and realise that this was made by God before the time of man or beast, to look at how the world was formed over millions/billions of years and to know that it is still forming, it is still being moulded by the hand of God. These are the wonders of creation, these are the images of an all powerful, all loving God.

Read the bible? yes, of course, but then put it down, open the window and look out at all of Gods divergence and splendour, then you may just begin to get an inckling of understanding.