Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

I know,I know…I heard it a million times…the ancient myths were incorporated into the Bible.

And I guess the only question I would have is why anyone would think otherwise? Even some of the many names for God found in Hebrew in the Tanakh are to be found in the names of some of the deities that the ancient Sumerians believed in.

A common human trait is that we learn from each other.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

 

[Metis1]

I do not doubt God created all, but how He did this cannot, imo, be direct. Why would God create miscarriages and children with serious birth defects? the “Fall”? Then that has God punishing little children and the unborn for something their relatives may have done. If your grandfather committed murder, are we to execute you for that?

Sorry, but I simply don’t buy into that paradigm. An excellent book by a Catholic theologian that covers this is “The Image of the Unseen God: Catholicity, Science, and the Evolving Understanding of God” by Thomas Hosinski, CSC.

 

[Metis1]

Yes, that’s what it says, but then I’m not a believer in biblical inerrancy.

BTW, the “scripture” being referred to was Torah as both the Christian scriptures and the Tanakh beyond Torah had not been canonized or, in the case of the former, even complete. The Jewish canon was not selected for beyond Torah until after Jesus’ death.

 

[sevenswords]

I’m sorry, but your first sentence makes no sense.

And you have just posted a video that says organic material was found in dinosaur bones that are millions of years old. And then say that it proves that they are not millions of years old.

The word your missing is Alleged!
Alleged to be millions of years old, but those living outside of padded cells know that when the science you claim to believe in tells you that soft tissue and blood cells in fossils would be impossible for all the obvious reasons you now have to believe they are wrong!
So you and evolutionary science are saying it is possible for all these fossils to have blood and tissue, so why should I listen to you again?
If you were in your right mind you would know that these fossils can not be millions of years old no matter what kind of rushed desperate pleas that come from the evolution camp trying to tell us black is white. Only a fool would swallow that pill.

Darwin’s Theory ? my tea bags have less holes in them than that load of old cobblers.
You seem confused about my post referring to fraud committed by evolutionists.
How about Tetrapods fish
Evolution of tetrapods - Wikipedia
This is what was being peddled as the forerunner of all land animals and still is even after finding species alive to day that for some strange reason have not changed a bit in unknown millions of years.
so again if you want to show me a transitional fossil then i’m all eyes
I don’t need to read fallacy, I don’t need Mary Schweitzer to tell me she is unhappy with some people stating the obvious about her findings,( she is not the only one either there are plenty of fossils with blood and tissue) I need her to explain why one day something was impossible and after finding the impossible it is now possible.
This is your science your belief system that contradicts itself not mine.
just to touch on an earlier post of yours, in which you try to allude to my beliefs being the way they are because of some kind of misunderstanding of God or the bible, that isn’t washing either, I do not believe evolution to be ridiculous because of my faith, that is very strong I believe it to be ridiculous because of the scientific evidence disproving it.
I admit I am more comfortable talking theology or philosophy as they are my passions but I don’t like the way lies are peddled to children who are put into indoctrination camps and fed a diet of lies from secular priests looking to take them away from God so they can take control of their minds and hearts.

 

[buffalo]

She js one person who is claiming to have fojnd organic material in these type of bones.

There are others now. It is becoming more common now that the base assumption made for years, that there would never be soft tissue because they are so old, has been overturned.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

I’m sorry, but your first sentence makes no sense.

And you have just posted a video that says organic material was found in dinosaur bones that are millions of years old. And then say that it proves that they are not millions of years old.

The word your missing is Alleged!.

Even the person who claims to have found organic material is adamant that the bones are millions of years old. They have been tested and confirmed to be millions of years old. They were found in rock which is millions of year old.

In any case, if you doubt the means by which they were tested then why are you bringing up the suggestion that organic material has been found? It’s completely irrelevant if you claim that the bones aren’t as old as has been verified.

So please let me know why the bones aren’t as old as stated. This seems to be the bone of contention. No pun intended.

 

[Aloysium]

Why would God create miscarriages and children with serious birth defects? the “Fall”? Then that has God punishing little children and the unborn for something their relatives may have done. If your grandfather committed murder, are we to execute you for that?

John 9:1-4: Now as Jesus was passing by, He saw a man blind from birth, and His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the works of God would be displayed in him.

Two meanings can be derived from this reading, both having to do with the revelation of God, first in the person of Jesus Christ as Healer and the Light of the World. The second is in the very presence of death that has arisen as a consequence of original sin. That is what we gaze upon when we see our infirmities, the shadow of what has been given to us, be it vision, or intelligence, or the capacity to move our limbs, that of which we would otherwise be unaware, as creatures imagining themselves to be gods, without God.

We are eternal and it is in this world that we determine through our actions in time, who we choose to be forever. There is far greater punishment than what this world can mete out. What enables us to tolerate and overcome any harm, and what makes existence intolerable in its absence, is love. We are all loved, and it is our refuge. To what extent do we return that love to one another and our creator is the issue.

Again, God created us perfect and we can again be so in the resurrection, not born of simian parentage, but created whole.

 

[buffalo]

They were found in rock which is millions of year old.

and that is where the argument is. Are those rocks really that old? Or did the soft tissue survive 65 million years?

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, the rocks really are. Unless you have some device from Acme Rock Dating Supplies which gives different data and they’ve sent you some to test.

What dates did you come up with? And what system of dating does Bufallo’s Super Rock And Boulder Dating Machine (apply now and we’ll send you another COMPLETELY FREE!) come up with?

And hurry up…I’m going out for a beer any minute now.

 

[rossum]

Alleged to be millions of years old, but those living outside of padded cells know that when the science you claim to believe in tells you that soft tissue and blood cells in fossils would be impossible for all the obvious reasons you now have to believe they are wrong!

As alleged by lying creationist websites with an agenda. There was no “soft tissue”, there were mineralized fragments of collaged, which had to be soaked in mild acid to remove the mineralization to allow the collagen to be analysed. There were no blood cells, there were spots of an iron-based mineral of about the right size and in the right locations to be fossilised red blood cells.

Do not believe those YEC websites that lie to you They have a very obvious agenda, and so are well practiced at fake news.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Are those rocks really that old? Or did the soft tissue survive 65 million years?

Yes the rocks are really that old. No, it was not “soft tissue”, it was mineralised fragments of collagen.

Science did make an error in assuming that collagen (which is a soft tissue, though not that soft) in assuming that fragmentary collagen could not survive that long. That error has sine been corrected with the new findings. In certain conditions, fragmentary soft tissue molecules (chunks of a protein chain) can survive that long.

You also need to realise that recent dinosaurs do not destroy evolution. I saw a dinosaur fly by my window today. We have a great many dinosaur fossils that are less than 65 million years old. Moas in New Zealand for example.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

And hurry up…I’m going out for a beer any minute now.

Pour a stout on the rock. If it turns black it is 65 million years old. If it turns red under 50,000 years. It is really easy, no confusion. A binary system.

And yes - the Acme tester is available on amozon.

 

[buffalo]

Science did make an error in assuming that collagen (which is a soft tissue, though not that soft) in assuming that fragmentary collagen could not survive that long. That error has sine been corrected with the new findings. In certain conditions, fragmentary soft tissue molecules (chunks of a protein chain) can survive that long.

ROTFL - of course, but it is not testable now is it…

In typical fashion we just know the rocks are that old, they have to be. So we have to find a way to claim soft tissue can last so long.

 

[buffalo]

You also need to realise that recent dinosaurs do not destroy evolution.

Really now. If it is proven a dinosaur died say 25,000 ya found in rocks that we dated at 65mya, then the rocks are not that old. The implications are vast. You know it. Don’t be coy and pretend. You are well aware why evo’s would not want this to be true.

 

[rossum]

In typical fashion we just know the rocks are that old,

We know they are that old because we have dated them by different methods. And we find that those dates we find are consistent to with the margins of error. Here are some figures for the dates of the Amitsoq Gneiss:

Method             |Age (billion years)
-------------------|-------------
 Rb - Sr isochron  | 3.70 ± 0.14
 Lu - Hf isochron  | 3.55 ± 0.22
 Pb - Pb isochron  | 3.80 ± 0.12
 U - Pb discordia  | 3.65 ± 0.05
 Th - Pb discordia | 3.65 ± 0.08

Weighted mean age 3.67 ± 0.06 billion years. These are some of the oldest rocks on earth.

These figures are taken from Dalrymple, How Old is the Earth.

Where are your scientific measurements that contradict these results, and others similar?

rossum

 

[rossum]

Really now. If it is proven a dinosaur died say 25,000 ya found in rocks that we dated at 65mya, then the rocks are not that old. The implications are vast. You know it. Don’t be coy and pretend. You are well aware why evo’s would not want this to be true.

No. If a dinosaur died 25,000 years ago and we found it, we would call it a bird. Even if we did find a recent non-avian dinosaur, that would not be a problem; just “Oh look, that isn’t extinct after all,” moment, followed by a rush of scientists to observe it, sequence its DNA and many other things. We have already had such moments with Coelacanths and Wollemi pines, both of which were thought to be extinct but living populations have now been found. Coelacanths were thought to have gone extinct at about the same time as the dinosaurs, so they are definitely a similar example to your scenario.

To upset evolution you need a Precambrian rabbit: an organism appearing well before its ancestors. An organism appearing after its ancestors is not a problem; “Hey, my grandparents are older than I am!”

rossum

 

[buffalo]

To upset evolution you need a Precambrian rabbit

I disagree

 

[Metis1]

God created us perfect

Tell that to parent of a child who is born brain dead as the paradigm you are using really doesn’t make sense. Instead, let me recommend a paradigm shift that may make more sense, namely that God created all but voluntarily left some elements to chance so that it becomes our world, not just His.

 

[Metis1]

If it is proven a dinosaur died say 25,000 ya found in rocks that we dated at 65mya, then the rocks are not that old.

Not necessarily as all scientific dates include + or -, and these vary with several factors.

 

[buffalo]

Not necessarily as all scientific dates include + or -, and these vary with several factors.

In your view what is more accurate?

Carbon dating for articles under 50,000 ya or the rock dating methods commonly used?