Biggest find in the history of paleontology

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Gup20:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp

This is actually by the same people who you evolution lovers have claimed "recanted" the previous find of red blood cells.

It was true then, and it's true now, ladies and gentlemen.

It was true then that they found an exquisitely preserved specimen in which you could even see microstructures and from which they isolated a few fragments of heme compounds. It was also true that the YEers then turned (read twisted and lied) this into a claim of fresh dinosaur flesh and actual vlood cells.

Now we set it happening again.

For all interested, here is hte paper.

http://www.geocities.com/shrumeo/1952.pdf

Now read it.

From the article.

The elucidation and modeling of processes
resulting in soft-tissue preservation may form
the basis for an avenue of research into the
recovery and characterization of similar structures
in other specimens, paving the way for
micro- and molecular taphonomic investigations.
Whether preservation is strictly morphological
and the result of some kind of unknown
geochemical replacement process or whether
it extends to the subcellular and molecular
levels is uncertain. However, we have identified
protein fragments in extracted bone samples,
some of which retain slight antigenicity
(3). These data indicate that exceptional morphological
preservation in some dinosaurian
specimens may extend to the cellular level or
beyond. If so, in addition to providing independent
means of testing phylogenetic
hypotheses about dinosaurs, applying molecular
and analytical methods to well-preserved
dinosaur specimens has important implications
for elucidating preservational microenvironments
and will contribute to our
understanding of biogeochemical interactions
at the microscopic and molecular
levels that lead to fossilization.

and

The fossil record is capable of exceptional
preservation, including feathers (4–6), hair (7),
color or color patterns (7, 8), embryonic soft
tissues (9), muscle tissue and/or internal organs
(10–13), and cellular structure (7, 14–16).
These soft tissues are preserved as carbon
films (4, 5, 10) or as permineralized threedimensional
replications (9, 11, 13), but in
none of these cases are they described as stillsoft,
pliable tissues.
Mesozoic fossils, particularly dinosaur fossils,
are known to be extremely well preserved
histologically and occasionally retain molecular
information (6, 17, 18), the presence of
which is closely linked to morphological
preservation (19). Vascular microstructures
that may be derived from original blood materials
of Cretaceous organisms have also been
reported (14–16).

What they found was very well preserved bone. They had to remove the minerals from it to get at the material providing the fuss. Let's read that again. The well preserved material was fossilized.

And you should not think that this is so rare or so new. From the same issue of sceince.

Assistant professor from McMaster University Ontario, Hendrik Poinar cautions that nucleated protozoan cells have been found in 225 million year old amber, but geochemical tests revealed that the nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of the vessels may be deceptive. Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440 million year old rocks, but the original material- likely collagen- had not survived.

I am sure the misrepresentation will continue. And the process will continue the damage to the witness of Christians as the unbelievers see the lies and decide that they want no part of that.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by john6:63:
See here in lies the problem with your theology. If you insist that I am to accept billions of years for the age of the earth and man evolving from some ape by means of “science” and interpret Genesis accordingly, then to be consistent I would have to reject the bodily Resurrection of Christ and the Virgin Birth, because lets face it, “science” regards these events as an impossibility.

You are equivocating which is a logical fallacy.

There can be no possible evidence to support a miracle other than perhaps an eyewitness. We take the resurrection of Christ on faith. There could not possibly be any evidence to support or deny it. It is a supernatural occurance which automatically puts it outside the purview of science.

On the other hand, the creation is all around us and records how the creation was accomplished. God's own creation is unequivocal that it has formed over billions of years. (Just ask Gup about his inability to talk about ice cores or snowball earth or new information or the Grand Canyon. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/43.html#000004 )

It also is unequivocal that all life on this planet is related through common descent.

Now it is entirely possible that God created the earth just as it is and made it just look like He took billions of years and used evolution. It is within His power. But I do not find that to be within His character. So I cannot buy that. But it is the only other possible explanation. There is no other coherent theory to account for our observations of the creation than what is provided by science unless you suggest that God would undertake such a massive fraud.

 

[mareese]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:


There can be no possible evidence to support a miracle other than perhaps an eyewitness. We take the resurrection of Christ on faith. There could not possibly be any evidence to support or deny it. It is a supernatural occurance which automatically puts it outside the purview of science.

On the other hand, the creation is all around us and records how the creation was accomplished. God's own creation is unequivocal that it has formed over billions of years. (Just ask Gup about his inability to talk about ice cores or snowball earth or new information or the Grand Canyon. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/43.html#000004 )

It also is unequivocal that all life on this planet is related through common descent.

Now it is entirely possible that God created the earth just as it is and made it just look like He took billions of years and used evolution. It is within His power. But I do not find that to be within His character. So I cannot buy that. But it is the only other possible explanation. There is no other coherent theory to account for our observations of the creation than what is provided by science unless you suggest that God would undertake such a massive fraud.

Bwaaaaahhhhaaaaa!!!!!
That was funny.
There are TONS of medical evidences to show that rising from the dead can't happen! There is NO coherent theory to account for a dead body coming back to life. The medical evidences based on sound scientific research deny the possibility. We are SURROUNDED by dead bodies that never rose again. If you don't believe me go sit in your local graveyard and count how many dead people come out of their graves and walk out. If you're going to claim fraud for things that have counter evidence you've got a whole lof of Bible to work with, and I am EXTREMELY offended that you would try to twist things to say this.
Evolution is true or God's a fraud. Shame on you for thinking such a thing, let alone saying it!

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by mareese:
There are TONS of medical evidences to show that rising from the dead can't happen! There is NO coherent theory to account for a dead body coming back to life. The medical evidences based on sound scientific research deny the possibility. We are SURROUNDED by dead bodies that never rose again.

If science showed that dead bodies do naturally rise again, then that would weaken Jesus' claim to divinity. In that case, his resurrection would no longer be something that only God could do. Do you see how that would be a major problem, especially since Paul claims that the resurrection (meaning a supernatural resurrection, not one that can be explained as a natural process) is the cornerstone of our faith?

The resurrection being supernatural is important because it establishes that Jesus really is God -- he is the same One who created and sustains our universe. Once we acknowledge that God is the source of nature, we are able to see God's power in both the supernatural and the natural. Natural processes we observe and describe such as gravity, electromagnetism and natural selection are as dependent upon God as miracles. God may allow these processes certain latitude and independence from himself analogous to the latitude he gives humans (nature is not, after all, God, and nature's attributes aren't necessarily God's attributes), but nature and natural processes cannot exist apart from God any more than we can. It is a serious error to only see God's involvement in his interventions in nature while viewing natural processes as things that exist independent of God.

If one properly understands God as ruling over both the natural and the supernatural, there should be no question about whether others can accept the evidence about how God worked and continues to work in nature while also accepting God's miracles.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by mareese:
Bwaaaaahhhhaaaaa!!!!!
That was funny.
There are TONS of medical evidences to show that rising from the dead can't happen! There is NO coherent theory to account for a dead body coming back to life. The medical evidences based on sound scientific research deny the possibility. We are SURROUNDED by dead bodies that never rose again. If you don't believe me go sit in your local graveyard and count how many dead people come out of their graves and walk out. If you're going to claim fraud for things that have counter evidence you've got a whole lof of Bible to work with, and I am EXTREMELY offended that you would try to twist things to say this.
Evolution is true or God's a fraud. Shame on you for thinking such a thing, let alone saying it!

I think you may have not read my post closely enough. That's OK, I am a patient man and will try again.

Bringing a dead body back to life is not possible under natural law. Yet you and I believe that Jesus not only raised others from the dead while He was here, but also that Jesus Himself ws raised from the dead. Since this is not a natural occurance it is by definition supernatural. If these occurances were part of the natural order of things, then that Christ could do them would NOT have given any support to His claim to be God incarnate.

Now, how do we know these things happened. Well we take the eyewitness accounts and our faith and we accept them as true. We could never hope to explain how it happened in terms we would understand. We could never hope to find any physical evidence to support it. We could never hope to study it or duplicate it. It is beyond our knowledge. We simply accept it. If we did not, we would not be Christians.

Now the method of creation is recorded in the creation. We can feel it, touch it, look at it, study it. Others can repeat these observations and see if they come to the same conclusion.

And it is overwhelming. The universe developed over 13.7 billion years starting with inflation. Our solar system coalesced from a nebula about 4.6 billion years ago. Life on this planet has been developing and changing for somewhere around 4 billion years. There is no doubt that this is what the creation itself shows. There are no other theories that account for the wide range of observations.

Now you seem to have taken offense at my suggestion of the only option left to you. That option is that God created the world recently, but that He took great care to make everything appear to have been formed over billions of years and the He took great care to show all life to appear to be related through common descent.

Now I am offended by this option, too. That is why I cannot accept it. But without another option to explain all the observations, you have no other choice than that option if you insist on a young earth.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mareese:
Bwaaaaahhhhaaaaa!!!!!
That was funny.
There are TONS of medical evidences to show that rising from the dead can't happen! There is NO coherent theory to account for a dead body coming back to life. The medical evidences based on sound scientific research deny the possibility. We are SURROUNDED by dead bodies that never rose again. If you don't believe me go sit in your local graveyard and count how many dead people come out of their graves and walk out. If you're going to claim fraud for things that have counter evidence you've got a whole lof of Bible to work with, and I am EXTREMELY offended that you would try to twist things to say this.
Evolution is true or God's a fraud. Shame on you for thinking such a thing, let alone saying it!

I think you may have not read my post closely enough. That's OK, I am a patient man and will try again.

Bringing a dead body back to life is not possible under natural law. Yet you and I believe that Jesus not only raised others from the dead while He was here, but also that Jesus Himself ws raised from the dead. Since this is not a natural occurance it is by definition supernatural. If these occurances were part of the natural order of things, then that Christ could do them would NOT have given any support to His claim to be God incarnate.

Now, how do we know these things happened. Well we take the eyewitness accounts and our faith and we accept them as true. We could never hope to explain how it happened in terms we would understand. We could never hope to find any physical evidence to support it. We could never hope to study it or duplicate it. It is beyond our knowledge. We simply accept it. If we did not, we would not be Christians.

Now the method of creation is recorded in the creation. We can feel it, touch it, look at it, study it. Others can repeat these observations and see if they come to the same conclusion.

And it is overwhelming. The universe developed over 13.7 billion years starting with inflation. Our solar system coalesced from a nebula about 4.6 billion years ago. Life on this planet has been developing and changing for somewhere around 4 billion years. There is no doubt that this is what the creation itself shows. There are no other theories that account for the wide range of observations.

Now you seem to have taken offense at my suggestion of the only option left to you. That option is that God created the world recently, but that He took great care to make everything appear to have been formed over billions of years and the He took great care to show all life to appear to be related through common descent.

Now I am offended by this option, too. That is why I cannot accept it. But without another option to explain all the observations, you have no other choice than that option if you insist on a young earth. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes there were “eyewitness” to the resurrected Christ, but “eyewitness” doesn’t explain the Virgin Birth of Christ. Science can’t explain it, because a virgin birth has never been observed or repeated in a lab, and again, if you apply science to the creation account, to be consistent you need to apply the same criteria to the Virgin Birth, which science regards this event as impossibility.

Since we are talking about “eyewitnesses” I believe that Genesis 5:1 holds a clue that Adam was in fact an “eyewitness” to the events that happened in Genesis 2 in the Garden. If not then Genesis 5:1 would not have read: This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.

Genesis 5:1 is a good reason to believe that God preserved and passed down His creation account from Adam to Moses whom acted as editor of the book of Genesis.

Obviously no man “witnessed” the creation account, but not so fast. We DO have an “eyewitness” and His name is Jesus Christ! Who was per John 1, with God in the beginning and became flesh and dwelt among us. He spoke of God creating both male and female from Genesis 5:1.

Is Jesus Christ not a good enough “eyewitness” for you in regards to Genesis? You speak of “supernatural” events in regards to the Virgin Birth and Christ’s miracles and His own resurrection, but God’s creation is a “supernatural” event as well. Just as science will never know “how” this earth and humans came into existence, all science can do is assume and put forth theories to support their assumptions.

In regards to the creation account and the Virgin Birth and a Christ’s resurrection, just as Christ “spoke” and commanded Lazarus to raise from the dead, God “spoke” this universe and this earth into existence, God “spoke” and Adam was created and as per Genesis 5:1, God called them Mankind in the day they were created.

The Virgin Birth and the Resurrection events are vital to our doctrine. And Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 states that faith in the Resurrection is essential to ones salvation. So here we see Christians who believes we evolved from a monkey because of what science says and then turn around and flush science down the drain when it comes to the Resurrected Christ and label the event “supernatural” which it certainly is, just to get around the “science” can’t explain “supernatural” events, just to secure your own salvation. Then you add the “eyewitness” to the mix, but refuse to believe the personal account of Jesus Christ who was an “eyewitness” to the creation account.

I have been following these topics for almost 2 years now and have come to the personal conclusion that you and your evolutionist brethren tend to pick and choose what to label in regards to salvation in the light of science.

YOU can never say “God did it.” Science will not let you. You would be laughed at. Evolutionists laugh at you for even entertaining the thought that God did it. Just as I challenged Travelsong to start a thread at IIDB concerning his belief in the Resurrected Christ, I challenge you to start a thread and link us to the thread and talk about how you believe in God and evolution and how you believe God did it and lets see just how you are mocked, ridiculed and called weak mined for even suggesting “God did it.”

No you want do what I suggested, that takes a huge pair of balls to do. I have shared my faith on those boards, I know how I believe God created this universe and this earth and I have been ridiculed and cussed at by both the atheists and the “Christians” alike.

No, you will stay right here at the Baptist Board and ridicule us for having “childlike faith” in the Word of God.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by john6:63:
Just the response I was expecting. It’s amazing how a professing Christian who believes in evolution based on the assumptions of science will not regard Genesis in a straightforward way as history the same way Jesus and Paul did some 2,000 years ago when they quoted from Genesis.

The days of the Genesis account are not contingent upon being 24 hour days in order to be used by God and Jesus to demonstrate the importance of the work week and the Sabbath.

Originally posted by john6:63:
See here in lies the problem with your theology. If you insist that I am to accept billions of years for the age of the earth and man evolving from some ape by means of “science” and interpret Genesis accordingly, then to be consistent I would have to reject the bodily Resurrection of Christ and the Virgin Birth, because lets face it, “science” regards these events as an impossibility.

First, I do not insist that you accept an old age for the earth or evolution. I insist that you respect the admonishments of Scripture in your dealings with bretheren and the lost who do.

Science has nothing to say about the possibility of miracles. Science can only observe, test, predict and verify empiral data.

Originally posted by john6:63:
So dispite of "science", I believe the bodily Resurrection and Virgin Birth of Christ because of what scripture says about these events, just as Genesis clearly states how God created this earth and all the host of it. I don't pick and choose what to believe in and what to write off as allegory based on "science."

Natural science is a legitimate pursuit of knowledge. You fear what you do not understand and react accordingly.

What it all comes down to is that the evidence for an old creation is overwhelming. Natural processes can be observed, tested, and verified for accuracy. Predictions can be made. There are three major independant cosmological arguments for the age of the universe being in the area of 13.5 billion years old.

Men who have far more understanding in the areas of astronomy, geology, plate tectonics, archaeology and biology than you ever will, know what they are talking about. It is downright sinful of you to put a stumbling block which requires willful ignorance upon any man as a prerequisite for salvation.

The argument for the cross has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the age of the earth.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
First, I do not insist that you accept an old age for the earth or evolution. I insist that you respect the admonishments of Scripture in your dealings with bretheren and the lost who do.

Science has nothing to say about the possibility of miracles. Science can only observe, test, predict and verify empiral data.

And I’m not insisting you accept Genesis as historical accurate, I’m merely proving how utterly ridicules you theology looks form someone who accepts God at His Word.

First, you accept mans theories and propagate them as “fact” because you believe science has a handle on the subject.

Second, others and I’m sure you too, refer the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection as “supernatural” events all know science doesn’t deal with the supernatural, BUT God creating this universe and the earth and man were all “supernatural” events. We will NEVER know HOW God done it, only that He did. But one day we will know, but that will not happen until we are dwelling in His Holy presence.

So to write off science when it comes to the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection and label these events as “supernatural” and not do the same for the creation shows how ridicules your theology looks.

Originally posted by Travelsong:
Men who have far more understanding in the areas of astronomy, geology, plate tectonics, archaeology and biology than you ever will, know what they are talking about.

And those same men tell me that the Virgin Birth is impossible along with the Resurrection of the dead. Do these men “know” what they are talking about now?

Originally posted by Travelsong:
It is downright sinful of you to put a stumbling block which requires willful ignorance upon any man as a prerequisite for salvation.

It’s fact my friend, in order to receive the free gift of salvation, one has to lay aside science and have faith that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. For an atheist this is a hard nut to crack because science says it’s not possible. Talk about a “stumbling block.”

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by john6:63:
And I’m not insisting you accept Genesis as historical accurate, I’m merely proving how utterly ridicules you theology looks form someone who accepts God at His Word.

That's your first unsupported assumption. You accuse me of sin in the inference that I don't 'accept God at His Word'.

Do I strive to live a life of sacrifice and selfless love?

Do I live my life accountable to the teaching and doctrine of Scripture?

Tell me how you are qualified to simultaneously judge and condemn my faith in God and His Word.

Originally posted by john6:63:
First, you accept mans theories and propagate them as “fact” because you believe science has a handle on the subject.

In fact I believe just the opposite. Science will never find the answer to the true origin of everything. Science can never in a million billion more years understand sin and the human condition at eternal peril. Science will never predict the reality of Christ, His ministry, His fulfillment of prophesy or His resurrection.

Originally posted by john6:63:
Second, others and I’m sure you too, refer the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection as “supernatural” events all know science doesn’t deal with the supernatural, BUT God creating this universe and the earth and man were all “supernatural” events. We will NEVER know HOW God done it, only that He did. But one day we will know, but that will not happen until we are dwelling in His Holy presence.
So to write off science when it comes to the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection and label these events as “supernatural” and not do the same for the creation shows how ridicules your theology looks.

You should take a break from making the same argument over and over again. If you pay attention to my responses you'll notice that science has absolutely nothing to say about miracles. It doesn't say that Christ's resurrection couldn't have happened any more than it claims pink unicorns don't exist. It has nothing to say about it at all.

Obviously a Christian must come to the conclusion that the origin of the universe is a miracle of God, that life and the union of both body and soul is a miracle. That Christ was miraculously born of a virgin, performed real, untestable supernatural acts. Spoke directly of God His Father. That He was crucified for our sins. That He arose from the dead on the third day. That if we believe these things with our heart and confess them, we will be saved.

Where does the age of the earth enter the debate? Either you believe for whatever reason that a literal plain text understanding is necessary, or you do not. In either case, no one is doubting the truth of God's Word.

 

[mareese]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:


Bringing a dead body back to life is not possible under natural law. Yet you and I believe that Jesus not only raised others from the dead while He was here, but also that Jesus Himself ws raised from the dead. Since this is not a natural occurance it is by definition supernatural. If these occurances were part of the natural order of things, then that Christ could do them would NOT have given any support to His claim to be God incarnate.

Now, how do we know these things happened. Well we take the eyewitness accounts and our faith and we accept them as true. We could never hope to explain how it happened in terms we would understand. We could never hope to find any physical evidence to support it. We could never hope to study it or duplicate it. It is beyond our knowledge. We simply accept it. If we did not, we would not be Christians.

Now the method of creation is recorded in the creation. We can feel it, touch it, look at it, study it. Others can repeat these observations and see if they come to the same conclusion.

And it is overwhelming. The universe developed over 13.7 billion years starting with inflation. Our solar system coalesced from a nebula about 4.6 billion years ago. Life on this planet has been developing and changing for somewhere around 4 billion years. There is no doubt that this is what the creation itself shows. There are no other theories that account for the wide range of observations.

Now you seem to have taken offense at my suggestion of the only option left to you. That option is that God created the world recently, but that He took great care to make everything appear to have been formed over billions of years and the He took great care to show all life to appear to be related through common descent.

Now I am offended by this option, too. That is why I cannot accept it. But without another option to explain all the observations, you have no other choice than that option if you insist on a young earth.

Science has repeated and imitated evolution? I don't think so. You can see and test life and death repeatedly, but not creation.
That God created life able to be self sustained and used by the resources provided on earth is no indication that it all evolved slowly. Humans were created with the appearance of mortality, but we accept that our souls are forever. Fraudulent? No. We can induce the mind to recreate near death experiences of seeing heaven, yet we still believe it is a real place we go to after death. Fraud again? No.
Admit that you're theories contradict. Everyone should be able to admit that, as I've never met a single person whose beliefs all perfectly coincided. Part of the reason your views are being received with a degree of contempt by other parties is your seeming unwillingness to admit that you are not perfect and do not have all the answers or perhaps not even the best ones in all matters of science and faith.

I'm curious as to what it is you do believe God created? Surely the Bible is not misinterpreted so poorly that the word intended was "caused to descend".
Please interpret and explain Genesis 1:1.

 

[mareese]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
If you pay attention to my responses you'll notice that science has absolutely nothing to say about miracles. It doesn't say that Christ's resurrection couldn't have happened any more than it claims pink unicorns don't exist. It has nothing to say about it at all.

Forgive me for using your own link against you.

Travelsong's Infidels

Others who agree with your evolutionary outlook have this to say about science and miracles. Do you disagree with what the author has said? What part of it do you disagree with, if any?

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by mareese:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Travelsong:
If you pay attention to my responses you'll notice that science has absolutely nothing to say about miracles. It doesn't say that Christ's resurrection couldn't have happened any more than it claims pink unicorns don't exist. It has nothing to say about it at all.

Forgive me for using your own link against you.

Travelsong's Infidels

Others who agree with your evolutionary outlook have this to say about science and miracles. Do you disagree with what the author has said? What part of it do you disagree with, if any? </font>[/QUOTE]You really should read that article a little more closely.

Yes I absolutely agree with it. A miracle by definition must violate a law of nature. Science cannot assess the nature of miracles, therefore it can make no predictions about the validity of miracles because science relies on empirical data.

From the same site article:

The philosophical issue which now comes into play is that of the relation between science and miracles (defined in the given way), particularly the attitude of scientists towards miracles. There seem to be at least the following possibilities:

(A) No scientist could ever believe in miracles under any circumstances.

(B) Scientists could believe in miracles, but not as scientists.

(C) Scientists could believe in miracles, even as scientists, but not when they are engaged in scientific research on the specific area in which the alleged miracles occur.

(D) Scientists, as scientists, could believe in miracles, even when engaged in scientific research on the specific area in which the alleged miracles occur, but such belief could not be regarded to be a result of the research or a scientific finding.

It seems clear that position (A) is incorrect, for there certainly have been scientists in the past who believed in miracles and there are still scientists today who do so (for example, many of those who identify themselves as Christians). But even if (A) is deleted, the question of which of the other positions is the correct one is rather difficult.

Certainly the last part of position (D) is correct. It could never be a scientific finding that a miracle occurred, for science is the attempt to understand reality in terms of the laws of nature. To say that a miracle occurred is to abandon the scientific (= naturalistic) perspective on the matter. If a scientist were to end up with such a belief, then it would be incompatible with the scientific point of view. It would be as if to say, "Here is something that could never be naturalistically explained and so it lies outside the domain of science."

 

[mareese]

Note that in the end, the author didn't seem to agree with, but stated that C is the most agreeable of those choices.
Such a belief goes along with the false belief that science and God negate each other.

 

[Travelsong]

No, science cannot predict miracles! That is the entire point.

Science requires empirical, testable data. Miracles by definition are outside the realm of science.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Just as science will never know “how” this earth and humans came into existence, all science can do is assume and put forth theories to support their assumptions."

Then you do not understand how science works.

Sceince observes. Then it hypothesizes. Then it goes out to see how well the hypothesis stands up to the data and to new data. The hypothesis is modified as needed. Eventually, if it explains enough and predicts enough it might rise to the lofty level of a theory. Evolution has been so successful that it is the theory that underlies all of biology.

"YOU can never say “God did it.” Science will not let you. You would be laughed at. Evolutionists laugh at you for even entertaining the thought that God did it. Just as I challenged Travelsong to start a thread at IIDB concerning his belief in the Resurrected Christ, I challenge you to start a thread and link us to the thread and talk about how you believe in God and evolution and how you believe God did it and lets see just how you are mocked, ridiculed and called weak mined for even suggesting “God did it.”"

First off, I am not a memeber over there. I have never claimed any involvement over there. So why would you challenge me to go join the group of atheists?

Now, I am one who believes in miracles and supernatural acts by God. However, that never comes up in my own research. The group of people I work with are almost exclusively Christian and mostly fairly conservative at that. Never have any of them looked at any data that we have collected and proposed that supernatural intervention was responsible. In fact, I think that if one were to make a suggestion that the response would be laughter even in such an environment.

"So to write off science when it comes to the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection and label these events as “supernatural” and not do the same for the creation shows how ridicules your theology looks. "

Not when God's own creation shows that He used long term processes.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Science has repeated and imitated evolution? I don't think so. "

Science has observed the mechanisms of evolution and has observed the data that points to evolution. These observations are repeatable.

"That God created life able to be self sustained and used by the resources provided on earth is no indication that it all evolved slowly."

Never claimed that it was.

"Humans were created with the appearance of mortality, but we accept that our souls are forever. Fraudulent? No. We can induce the mind to recreate near death experiences of seeing heaven, yet we still believe it is a real place we go to after death. Fraud again? No."

I do not know what you are driving at.

The universe shows every sign that it was created 13.7 billion years ago. All life on earth shows unmistakable signs that it is related through common descent. I find the idea that God would create the universe recently but would exercise such care to make it appear to have been created through other means to be offensive and beyond the character of God as revealed to us.

"Admit that you're theories contradict. Everyone should be able to admit that, as I've never met a single person whose beliefs all perfectly coincided. Part of the reason your views are being received with a degree of contempt by other parties is your seeming unwillingness to admit that you are not perfect and do not have all the answers or perhaps not even the best ones in all matters of science and faith."

You have not seen enough of me. There are areas that I do not understand. I am not quite sure how every scrap fits together. I do not claim to know everything or to be free from error. I do not claim that there is research to be done and things to be learned in the germane sciences.

"I'm curious as to what it is you do believe God created? Surely the Bible is not misinterpreted so poorly that the word intended was "caused to descend". "

First off, I do not think that the creation is a literal step by step account so such shades of wording are not important.

Second, I think that God did create the universe and everything in it. I, personally, find it not more or less miraculous for God to have created the long way through laws of His creation or the short way.

Finally, do you think of yourself as a creation of God? Were you not born of your parents through natural means? There is no contradiction there.

 

[mareese]

UTEOW and Travelsong, please explain the first chapter in Genesis.
Why do you believe it's worded like it is? What do you believe the proper interpretation is?
What was it the beginning of?

God said "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth".

UTEOTW said The universe developed over 13.7 billion years starting with inflation.
Our solar system coalesced from a nebula about 4.6 billion years ago.

God said that he created the earth in six days and everything in it, including man. It does not say it developed slowly.

UTEOTW said Life on this planet has been developing and changing for somewhere around 4 billion years


What is a morning and evening and first, second, third day? God said He breathed into man and he became a living soul. At what point in evolution did this happen? When man walked upright? Or was it around the time man developed even more intelligence. UTEOTW stated this in another thread:

In the case of human intelligence, while we may be smarter than what is required to survive the savannah, intelligence is useful and will help the chances of survival. Look at what happened when Neanderthal and Homo sapiens came in contact. The smarter survived to make computers to discuss with each other their survival.

While I appreciate his sense of humor, I *think* the humorous part was only meant to be the last sentence.
At what point of our intelligence do you believe God decided we needed a Savior?
If evolution continues, it's very likely that at some point in time dolphins will develop quite a bit of intelligence. Will there then be a need for another Savior? Is there more to the "Save the dolphins" bumper stickers then we realize?

I know this sounds absurd, but I'm quite serious with the questions. Evolution gives us two choices when it comes to humans and salvation.

1. We developed enough intelligence to capture God's attention and cause him to decide we should be miraculously preserved over our fellow evoluted friends.

2. God, at some point in time after humans developed sufficiently, endowed them with souls to separate them from the other developing creations. (in this scenario why wouldn't you think God will some day do the same for dolphins?)

 

[UTEOTW]

"Why do you believe it's worded like it is? What do you believe the proper interpretation is?
What was it the beginning of?"

It is worded like that to establish the One Living True God from the other pagan gods that were popular at the time and to allow everyone through all ages to know God is the creator of all.

"What is a morning and evening and first, second, third day?"

What are a morning and evening for a few days when there is not yet a sun? It is quite difficult to have a period of sunrise and sunset without the sun.

Now some will attribute this to another source of light, but they then remove themselves from the literal reading they are trying so hard to support.

Perhaps this is a sign that it is not literal.

Or look at the account again and look at chapter 2 also. In the first chapter the animals are created and then man. In the second, man is created and then the animals as potentials helpers until they are all found wanting and woman is created. The different order makes a strict literal interpretation difficult. But in a non-literal interpretation is goes right along with man being placed in dominion over the earth and its other inhabitants.

Or what about the way it is phrased. God commanded the waters and the earth to bring forth life. Could that not be a hint at evolution?

"God said He breathed into man and he became a living soul. At what point in evolution did this happen? When man walked upright? Or was it around the time man developed even more intelligence."

One of those things I don't know. I would guess rather recently, after fully modern man had developed.

"At what point of our intelligence do you believe God decided we needed a Savior? "

When he gave us a soul and allowed us the choice to follow HIm or not. We chose badly.

"If evolution continues, it's very likely that at some point in time dolphins will develop quite a bit of intelligence. Will there then be a need for another Savior? Is there more to the "Save the dolphins" bumper stickers then we realize? "

No. Man was the obvious desired outcome of God's creation. God would have to chose to give dolphins the ability to know right from wrong in order for them to become capable of sin and to become in need of a Savior. There is no indication that this is part of the plan. Besides, there are plenty of men about who are capable of choosing to follow God and to give Him praise. Was that not the point of being given a free will? Worship by creatures with no choice is not good.

"2. God, at some point in time after humans developed sufficiently, endowed them with souls to separate them from the other developing creations."

Something like that.

Now some questions for you.

I have made the assertion that all life on earth shows distinct signs of being produced by common descent and the universe of being formed through billions of years.

I see two choices for you.

1. You can allow that all signs point to an old universe and evolution but that it is only an illusion. God really created the earth recently but wanted it to appeaa to be formed through different means. If this is your choice, could you please explain how you think this fits into the character of God and why He would do such a thing?

2. You can assert that the data really does not show an old universe or evolution. In that case, you are required to present a coherent theory that explains the observations that science uses to claim an old earth and evolution. You need to explain everything from the cosmic miocrowave background and the expansion of hte universe to the geology of the earth to biological observations such as the twin nested heirarchy, the known transitional series, shared pseudogenes, shared retroviral inserts, molecular and anatomical vestiges, molecular and anatomical parahomology, ontogeny, past biogeography amd present biogeography.

Which is it?

 

[mareese]

UTEOTW, come on now. Why would you choose to believe that God made His word appear to say something it really doesn't?
Is God's word different from his creation? Does your understanding of God's nature fluctuate when it comes to the spoken words of the Bible and the created words of nature?

How do you know man was the desired outcome of God's creation? It could just as well have been any species, and natural influences could have stunted our development and allowed those dolphins to reach the intelligence limit God wanted before assigning a soul to the species.
What is so improbable about that? Do you believe in a modified form of evolution that has God tampering with and manipulating genes to make sure it all turns out according to his vision?

My choice would be both of them, with a few minor adaptations such as all of the sentences removed.

There is no question that the creationist view presents some major difficulties, as does evolution. Russell Humphreys, and don't take my mention of his work as an agreement with it, brought up some interesting thoughts in "Starlight and Time". I have serious doubts as to whether he's even aware of what he did, but in essence he presented a gap theory that made some degree of sense but still allowed for a literal seven day creation of our earth and heaven, although you do seem much more interested in explanations for the observations of life and occurences right here under our own feet.

In Revelation we are presented with a heaven in which there is no sun, but a son as the source of light.
Is this figurative or literal?

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by UTEOTW
You can allow that all signs point to an old universe and evolution but that it is only an illusion. God really created the earth recently but wanted it to appeaa to be formed through different means. If this is your choice, could you please explain how you think this fits into the character of God and why He would do such a thing?

How does it "fit into the character of God" to speak to the Israelites in Exodus 20, saying "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them..." entirely within the context of remembering the sabbath as the "day," and its length, as if that were in question? That is inherantly midleading on the part of God, if it is not true.