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
chemcatholic:
At the end of each ‘day’ in the first account of creation, the phrase “Evening came, and morning followed - the nth day”. Yet evening and morning are caused by rotation of the Earth around the sun, and the stars weren’t created until the fourth ‘day’. Right from the start the author of Genesis cannot be speaking entirely literally. Without the sun, evening and morning cannot exist as we know it. Therefore the evening and morning mentioned for the first three ‘days’ cannot be literal. If ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ are not literal, why should ‘day’ be taken literally?
Click to expand...
So if we re-interpret words in scripture any way we want, we can come up with anything.
A day can be a 24 hour day without the Sun, as God Knows all and anticipates the solar cycle. Man in space still refers to ‘days’.
We may as well throw out all New Testament references by our Lord to Creation as well as ‘unreliable’
Its all about Faith I suppose.
God Bless
 
40.png
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 !
Click to expand...
The root analysis takes the words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ and turns them from markers of time into markers of order/disorder. To me it sounds like ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ were not meant to be used as exact markers of time, but as a way to illustrate the disorder to order of creation.
40.png
CreosMary:
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. **
Click to expand...
Your two lessons contradict your point of view. The first says to use the deepest literal sense of the word, while the second says that from the start ‘evening’ and ‘day’ are used to define a 24 hour period. Yet the root words of ‘evening’ and ‘day’ are descriptors of order and disorder, not time. Therefore by applying the first lesson, one does not arrive at the second lesson.
 
40.png
CreosMary:
So if we re-interpret words in scripture any way we want, we can come up with anything.
A day can be a 24 hour day without the Sun, as God Knows all and anticipates the solar cycle. Man in space still refers to ‘days’.
We may as well throw out all New Testament references by our Lord to Creation as well as ‘unreliable’
Its all about Faith I suppose.
God Bless
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that the ‘day’ mentioned in Genesis has ever been infallibly declared to refer specifically to a 24 hour period. Hence there is room for re-interpretation / clarification (unlike other topics such as Body and Blood, Trinity, etc.).
 
vern humphrey:
There was a Catholic priest who said that killing Teri Schiavo by depriving her of water for 13 days was okay with the Church, too.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon8.gif

Note this guy starts with “Why Biblical Geology?” That ought to tell us he’s starting with a conclusion and working to find evidence for it.

As for being a geologist, he lists his educational credentials: "Educationally I have a Bachelor of Science majoring in Earth Science with first class honours, a Bachelor of Engineering with first class honours in Mechanical Engineering and a Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering. "
Click to expand...
Vern, you are blathering. Non-sequitors galore.
 
vern: maybe it’s late for you? You seem to be kind of blathering. Lots of non-sequitors. Is there any specific thing you want me to respond to?
 
40.png
catholic2:
While both Plaisted and Weins are biased, Weins certainly is more condescending with that air of superiority that comes from practically placing radiometrics on an unassailable pedestal.
Click to expand...
You stopped short of what he was referring to when he mentioned the “slight of hand” used by those who want to discredit radiometric dating. Why did you do that?
So now people who question his beloved radiometrics are doubters and tricksters. Almost like having a religion of radiometrics.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, catholic2. Your statement is much more condescending than anything in Dr. Weins’ paper. You disagree with him on a philosophical basis, but since the science is clearly on his side, so you try to make this a philosophical argument when it clearly is not.
What do you think of the most recent link I posted by Tas Walker?
uq.net.au/~zztbwalk/
Click to expand...
I haven’t had a chance to look at it yet, but I promise I will.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
catholic2:
What do you think of the most recent link I posted by Tas Walker?
uq.net.au/~zztbwalk/
Click to expand...
OK, I have read Mr. Walker’s ideas. Mr. Walker demonstrates exactly how science doesn’t work. He starts with the premise that a (protestant) theologian has accurately dated the earth based on geneologies set forth in the bible and tries to make the observations (of other people no less) fit his story. His story telling is based in no part on science, be it geology, physics, chemistry or biology. Just on Bishop Ussher’s timeline.

My question is do you believe what he is selling?

Peace

Tim
 
It was not until a couple years ago that I learned there are still people who believe dinosaurs and man co-existed. I was astonished to learn this, I thought it was an idea that passed with the 1950’s.

If you want a good indicator that the Earth is billions of years old, just look at continental drift. The continents move about as fast as a human finger nail grows, or about 1-2 inches per year, this is a fact. Now, take that information and extrapolate how many years, based on the distance between the continents currently, that it took for the continents to reach their current locations.
 
40.png
Mac6yver:
If you want a good indicator that the Earth is billions of years old, just look at continental drift. The continents move about as fast as a human finger nail grows, or about 1-2 inches per year, this is a fact. Now, take that information and extrapolate how many years, based on the distance between the continents currently, that it took for the continents to reach their current locations.
Click to expand...
The drift occured quite rapidly at the start. (oh oh incoming again! You’re going to ask me how do I know. 1st, tell me how do you know, OK?)

(a quote from Tas Walker’s site:) uq.net.au/~zztbwalk/
…many scientists today, including geologists, believe the Bible records true history. I would encourage him to read John Ashton’s new book ‘In six days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in Creation’ (all of whom have PhDs in science).
Click to expand...
did anyone read Ashton’s book?
 
Just one more on continental drift…
christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html
If an inch [2.54 centimeters] or so per year of inferred movement today is extrapolated back into the past as uniformitarians do, then their conventional plate tectonics model has limited exploratory power. For example, even at a rate of four inches [10.16 centimeters] per year, it is questionable whether the forces of the collision between the Indian-Australian and Eurasian Plates could have been sufficient to push up the Himalayas. On the other hand, catastrophic plate tectonics in the context of the flood can explain how the plates overcame the viscous drag of the earth’s mantle for a short time due to the enormous catastrophic forces at work, followed by a rapid slowing down to present rates.
Continental separation solves apparent geological enigmas. For instance, it explains the amazing similarities of sedimentary layers in the northeastern United States to those in Britain. It also explains the absence of those same layers in the intervening North Atlantic ocean basin, as well as the similarities in the geology of parts of Australia with South Africa, India, and Antarctica.
Click to expand...
 
Do you really want to get into a source war? Because I can find many more sites that recognize the accepted concept of continental drift then you could ever find YEC sources. Try www.discovery.com for instance. The fact is that mountains are still being create as we speak. The plates are still shifting as we speak. this guess work that the continents shifted hundreds or even thousands of miles in a small amount of time is silly First of all the stress placed on the plates would have broken them into God knows how many sections. Don’t even get me started on the flood, aside from the fact that there does not exist enough water on the face of the planet to cover every land mass entirely combined with the fact that fresh water fish exist today discredits a world wide flood. There probably was a flood, but it was local.
 
Don’t even get me started on the flood,…
Click to expand...
start…isn’t that the time when the dinosaurs got wiped out?(except those on Noah’s ark)
 
Hey didn’t you hear of that freshwater lake in South America that has salt water fish acclimated to fresh? I think there’s sharks, etc. in it.
 
40.png
catholic2:
Hey didn’t you hear of that freshwater lake in South America that has salt water fish acclimated to fresh? I think there’s sharks, etc. in it.
Click to expand...
There are some fish that live in both environments. Salmon for example. Most fish, however, cannot survive in both environments and will die rather quickly if placed in the incompatible environment.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
Orogeny:
There are some fish that live in both environments. Salmon for example. Most fish, however, cannot survive in both environments and will die rather quickly if placed in the incompatible environment.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
But some do. (like those in the lake I mentioned above) They can become acclimated to either fresh or salt. Locally in Hawaii, the Tilapia is a good example. They live in both salt and fresh or brackish water. They were introduced from Africa and are considered a real pest here.

Tim: Given the short half life of c14 of 5,730 years there should be no detectable trace of c14 in organic material after 250,000 years (or 43.6 half lives). Yet Accelerator Mass Spectrometer methods show 14c in all but the youngest Phanerzoic samples of 0.1 to 0.5 pmc(percent modern carbon) regardless of geological age. Coals, limestones, etc have been tested. How do you figure this?
 
Also again on C14. What do you think of this postulate: There was, before the flood, much more organic activity, some estimate from coal and oil deposits to be at least 100 times more than present. The entire earth was temperate, it seems. This being the case, atmospheric Carbon14 would be less since much more would be trapped in living organisms. If this was the case, then it would skew the modern Carbon 14 testing on ancient objects to give an age older than it really is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top