Scientists Find Soft Tissue in T-Rex Bone

  • Thread starter Thread starter stumbler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
CreosMary:
Legalised and approved abortion** is** a direct consequence of the meaningless of life supported by thiestic and althiestic pro-evolutionary’s.
Click to expand...
Creos,

I would be one of those you would identify as a “thiestic evolutionary” and I hold life to be a dear gift from God. I am absolutely opposed to abortion, euthanasia, “mercy” killings, etc. How is my acceptance of evolution the cause of those things?

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
Norwich:
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?
Click to expand...
Nicely put.
Creomary hangs all her belief on Genesis and the first seven days.
Click to expand...
Just for clarity’s sake, CreosMary is a man.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
CreosMary:
Legalised and approved abortion** is** a direct consequence of the meaningless of life supported by thiestic and althiestic pro-evolutionary’s.

I challenge you to demostrate that. Show us the linkage.
Click to expand...
40.png
CreosMary:
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
Click to expand...
I do trust the Church. I don’t trust people who make all sorts of claims they can’t back up.
40.png
CreosMary:
God Bless
Pray for the Holy Father
Click to expand...
He is in our prayers constantly.
 
40.png
Ghosty:
Church theology demands that we accept that:
  1. All things were made by God.
  2. The human soul is specially and immediately created by God.
  3. Adam was a very real human, and the first “true man” in that he was the first homonid to have a human soul.
  4. Eve was a very real human, and the first “true woman”, and Adam’s wife.
  5. All true humans claim descent from this original pair; no one is alive today who can not trace their lineage back to them.
These are the dogmas we must accept as Catholics. Any opinion which embraces these dogmas is orthodox, meaning both creationism and evolution can be orthodox. You’ll notice that there is no dogma about how the human body was formed, and that’s where evolution and creationism are free to disagree. What we are not free to do is deny the orthodoxy of the opposing viewpoint, though we are free to debate it. So when we say that you’re not free to oppose it, we’re saying that you’re not free to oppose its presence in the Church.

A similar example would be the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist. There are Eastern Catholics who use leavened bread, and they have theological reasons for their preference. We, as Western Catholics, are free to disagree with their preference, and possibly even debate why one is better than the other, but we are NOT permitted to oppose the use of leavened bread as unorthodox; the Church has already spoken on what constitutes the proper bread for Transubtantiation to occur, and both leavened and unleavened bread fall within that definition.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there are many strong quotes from Popes against bodily evolution leading to Adam/Eve.

The year after the publication of Darwin’s evolution thesis, the Provincial Council of Cologne issued the following canon, which was approved by Pope Pius IX:

“Our first parents were immediately created by God (Gen.2.7). Therefore we declare as quite contrary to Holy Scripture and the Faith the opinion of those who dare to assert that man, in respect of the body, is derived by spontaneous transformation from an imperfect nature, which improved continually until it reached the present human state.”

Pope Leo XIII taught clearly in 1880 in the encyclical letter Arcane Divinae Sapientiae that Adam and Eve are our first parents and that Eve was created from a portion of Adam’s body:

“We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated, and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time.”
 
_Christopher_:
Yes, but there are many strong quotes from Popes against bodily evolution leading to Adam/Eve.

The year after the publication of Darwin’s evolution thesis, the Provincial Council of Cologne issued the following canon, which was approved by Pope Pius IX:

“Our first parents were immediately created by God (Gen.2.7). Therefore we declare as quite contrary to Holy Scripture and the Faith the opinion of those who dare to assert that man, in respect of the body, is derived by spontaneous transformation from an imperfect nature, which improved continually until it reached the present human state.”

Pope Leo XIII taught clearly in 1880 in the encyclical letter Arcane Divinae Sapientiae that Adam and Eve are our first parents and that Eve was created from a portion of Adam’s body:

“We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated, and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time.”
Click to expand...
Allow me to point out that Annie’s worst objection is those who hypothesize life arose from a chemical “stew.” Which is to say, God "made man from the slime of the earth."

To deny science doesn’t make sense – particularly as the evidence keeps getting stronger. Are we to place our belief in God, or in our rejection of science? If the former, who cares HOW God chose to do his business? If the latter, will our faith not collapse at some point, when it becomes unarguable that God performed the creation in His way, not as we would have Him do it?
 
_Christopher_:
Yes, but there are many strong quotes from Popes against bodily evolution leading to Adam/Eve.

The year after the publication of Darwin’s evolution thesis, the Provincial Council of Cologne issued the following canon, which was approved by Pope Pius IX:

“Our first parents were immediately created by God (Gen.2.7). Therefore we declare as quite contrary to Holy Scripture and the Faith the opinion of those who dare to assert that man, in respect of the body, is derived by spontaneous transformation from an imperfect nature, which improved continually until it reached the present human state.”

Pope Leo XIII taught clearly in 1880 in the encyclical letter Arcane Divinae Sapientiae that Adam and Eve are our first parents and that Eve was created from a portion of Adam’s body:

“We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated, and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time.”
Click to expand...
Pope Paul V also made Galileo recant when he said that the earth travelled around the sun!!! That was in the days of ignorance of scientific fact regarding astronomy. It would appear that the same can be said about Leo XIII in 1880 when talking about evolution.
 
40.png
Norwich:
Pope Paul V also made Galileo recant when he said that the earth travelled around the sun!!! That was in the days of ignorance of scientific fact regarding astronomy. It would appear that the same can be said about Leo XIII in 1880 when talking about evolution.
Click to expand...
So God didn’t really take Eve from the side of Adam, despite what the Bible says and despite what Leo XIII said can’t be doubted by any?

“But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” - Jesus Christ, Gospel of Mark 10:6

Was Jesus wrong too?
 
I definitely think that this is evidence that the earth is not 4 billion years old.
 
vern humphrey:
How do you figure this?
Click to expand...
Surely you don’t think that soft-tissue survived 65 million years??? All of the dates must be off.
 
40.png
Christ-Face:
Surely you don’t think that soft-tissue survived 65 million years??? All of the dates must be off.
Click to expand...
First of all, what does what I “think” got to do with it? Science is not based on opinion polls, but upon objective data and analysis.

Secondly, what has a 65-million year estimate for a dinosaur got to do with a 4 billion year estimate for the age of the earth? The two figures were derived by entirely different means – if we were to find the earth were 8 billion years old, that wouldn’t cause us to revise our estimate for the age of dinosaurs.

This illustrates why so many people are not persuaded by those who reject evolution – most objections to evolution are based on opinions and bad science.
 
vern humphrey:
First of all, what does what I “think” got to do with it? Science is not based on opinion polls, but upon objective data and analysis.

Secondly, what has a 65-million year estimate for a dinosaur got to do with a 4 billion year estimate for the age of the earth? The two figures were derived by entirely different means – if we were to find the earth were 8 billion years old, that wouldn’t cause us to revise our estimate for the age of dinosaurs.

This illustrates why so many people are not persuaded by those who reject evolution – most objections to evolution are based on opinions and bad science.
Click to expand...
I dunno, I guess it sounds naeve but God’s word is good enough for me. Science is not evil though. I am confident that one day science will evolve (lol) to the point where it supports the Bible instead of contradicting it.
 
_Christopher_:
So God didn’t really take Eve from the side of Adam, despite what the Bible says and despite what Leo XIII said can’t be doubted by any?

“But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” - Jesus Christ, Gospel of Mark 10:6

Was Jesus wrong too?
Click to expand...
From the beginning of creation God made everything male and female. It’s interesting to note the expression FROM THE BEGINNING OF CREATION, it seems to imply an ongoing process, note FROM, not AT.
 
40.png
Christ-Face:
I dunno, I guess it sounds naeve but God’s word is good enough for me. Science is not evil though. I am confident that one day science will evolve (lol) to the point where it supports the Bible instead of contradicting it.
Click to expand...
If God’s word is good enough for you, why all the pseudo-science, like claiming if the estimated age of dinosaurs is off all the other dates are off?
 
vern humphrey:
His injuries are considered serious and he’s not expected to
recover.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

I’m going to follow the story – it will be a while before DNA test results are announced.
Click to expand...
HAHA :rotfl:

How long do DNA tests normally take for ~65 million year old patients? I really am curious. What do they plan on getting from the DNA? Or rather, what are they looking for? Anything in particular?
 
40.png
IsaacSheen:
HAHA :rotfl:

How long do DNA tests normally take for ~65 million year old patients? I really am curious. What do they plan on getting from the DNA? Or rather, what are they looking for? Anything in particular?
Click to expand...
If they truly have soft tissue, they may well have a source of DNA – only testing will tell. And dinosaur DNA will tell us a lot about the relationship between dinosaurs and current species.

By and large, DNA testing confirms cladistics, but there have been some surprises.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
 
40.png
Orogeny:
How is my acceptance of evolution the cause of those things?
Click to expand...
Some politicians have made the connection between evolution and some social ills.
 
40.png
tuopaolo:
Some politicians have made the connection between evolution and some social ills.
Click to expand...
That’s not an answer. Some politicians (in South Africa) think AIDS is a nutritional defficiency, too. That doesn’t make it so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top