Gosh… you need to get down off your high horse before you spring a nose bleed … and it empties your head…
I think Jesus would want you loving your family members more and judging them less… but who am I to say, right?
So let me get this straight, @grog
In post 53, you said you did answer Chris’s question.
But here we read in post 60, in response to my pinning you to the mat with your own tortured words … you had to admit that you were lying in post 53 - - you didn’t answer his question!
In fact you apparently take Pride in not answering people’s questions… When you give a defense… it’s like getting poked in the eye. And I must conclude you take pride in lying to your correspondents as well… because it’s all in the name of squashing the Evolutionist devils around you, yes?
This little test proves to me, using your very own words, that we can’t trust your descriptions of what you write,
let alone your descriptions of what anyone else is writing. Why can’t you just debate like a normal person? Over the course of several weeks, you have been self-inflicting body-blows to your own credibility … with a whopper of a coup de gras’ . right here …
@Chris_Falter, I think he owes me a lot of Klingon cash…
This was clearly an unexpected find. You can read about some of the hypotheses about the presence of the soft tissue here: "Soft Tissue" in Dinosaur Bones: What Does the Evidence Really Say? - BioLogos (wow, that’s a really long URL!).
While it is tempting to consider this as evidence of a young-earth creation, it is important to ask if soft tissue in dinosaur fossils is evidence of a young earth, then why do so few fossils have it?
Hi Greg,
Hope you and yours are doing well this evening. I regret that I do not have the time to discuss all your interesting questions. But quickly…
You are confused about Cain. God’s mark is what protected him, not the city he built. As far as your speculation about the city size, well that’s exactly what it is: speculation. We know it wasn’t Chicago; at the same time, all the cities that go by that name in the Bible are thought to have had hundreds of inhabitants at a minimum, as seen in the Scriptures when populations are cited and the findings of Biblical archeology when they are not.
Noah: many opponents of evolution such as Hugh Ross believe that the “earth” that got flooded was a local region, not the entire globe.
As for the Genesis creation accounts, I think they are better classified as framework or exalted prose narrative rather than poetry. And even if they were poetry, that does not make them ipso facto a history in the same fashion as the gospels.
I am not trying to launch a broad debate over all of these issues. My hope is simply that you will acknowledge that I am indeed taking the Scriptures very seriously, even if you disagree with my hermeneutics.
Grace and peace,
Chris
The problem here is calling it “soft tissue” … at the molecular level this tissue has been marvelously preserved. And so it makes for an impressive artifact of fossilization.
But if such finds are evidence that Dinosaur fossils are less than 6000 years old … we would be finding lots more other tissue to go with it, right?
There would be blood and genetic material - - highly degraded - - but on par with what we find with Mammoth bodies…
In fact, the most recently living full-sized mammoths are twice as old, as the Garden of Eden!
“The woolly mammoth coexisted with early humans, who used its bones and tusks for making art, tools, and dwellings, and the species was also hunted for food. It disappeared from its mainland range at the end of the Pleistocene 10,000 years ago…”
And the smaller, isolated strain of Mammoths, are as old as all the dinosaur fossils are supposed to be!
“. . . .Isolated populations survived on St. Paul Island until 5,600 years ago and Wrangel Island until 4,000 years ago.”
And yet nowhere do we find dinosaurs, even the ones with preserved cartilage!, preserved to the degree we find in *any of the full-body finds of mammoths. Animals that have been dead and buried for a mere 4000 years are completely different from all the dinosaur finds anyone has ever found.
Just read the account of the Jarkov Mammoth (discovered in 1997, not the 1800’s)… it is believed to have died 18,000 years ago! If all the dinosaurs died 4000 years ago - - think of how many bodies of all the different dinosaur types and sizes would have been uncovered by now?!
If you want proof, @grog, there’s your proof… And, as in so many other cases like this, Creationists have zero explanation for this problem.
“It currently resides in an ice cave where over thirty-six scientists from all over the world, including Russian mammoth expert Alexei Tikhonov, study the find. The excavation and ongoing study of the Jarkov Mammoth has been recorded by the Discovery Channel. Bone marrow and Pleistocene plant samples have been removed and sent to various laboratories for analysis as the mammoth thaws.”
Footnote: DeLaine, Linda (15 March 2007). “Jarkov Mammoth”. RussianLife.com. Retrieved 11 January 2010.
https://russianlife.com/archive/article/params/Number/458/Jarkov/
.
.
.
Main Link for the Jarkov Mammoth
Jarkov Mammoth - Wikipedia
.
.
.
MAMMOTH: The Resurrection of an Ice Age Giant by Richard Stone
.
.
.
PDFs for sale for $10
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/343932
1 Like
I would imagine that a period of a couple of thousand years should eliminate the soft tissue in whole, don’t you think? Honestly the gravity of the issue surrounding the presence of soft tissue in fossils thought to be 10’s of millions of years doesn’t not compare to the gravity found in the idea that we find it in only a few fossils because a couple of thousand years should be enough to remove most of the soft tissue in whole…
I read a bit tonight about radiometric dating…all of you Christian scientists from all angles need to meet for some brotherly, honest discourse on this issue. I read tonight from a theistic evolutionist how isochron dating is highly accurate, yet according to the RATE team, this dating method in a reliable lab, tests rocks at the top of the Grand canyon to be older than the ones at the bottom!
What is going on here?!
then I read about the presence of “lots” of Helium in Zircon crystals suggests that billions of years is out of the question when it comes to the age of the earth…
So you say one thing and the other guy says the other…Who is telling the truth and who is lying through their teeth? Or is there such a mix of results that this whole issue of the age of the earth must remain mysterious in which case best to just side with the Word of God?
I believe it would be really healthy for theistic evolutionist groups to rub shoulders with old earth creationists to discuss the topic of evolution vs creation to compare and contrast findings when it comes to the validity of evolution or not. And I believe it would be really healthy for a old earth crew to rub shoulders with a young earth crew and compare and contrast findings about age issues.
And with this, put forward honest outcomes of the science in relation to the earth’s age evolution vs creation etc…and take all of this information and go to the finest, most trusted fruit bearing theologians on the planet and filter these conclusions through the lense of good Biblical scholarship.
And from this, if the young earth crew says that despite what the findings may be put forth I still remain steadfast on the earth being young because the Bible suggests this, then extend grace to that crew and honor them for such faith. And if the old earth crew finds that there really is so much evidence that seems almost insurmountable proving that the earth is old even after considering the evidence to the contrary given by the yec crew, then the yec crew needs to extend grace to them! And all of this needs to be done in a way that honors Jesus Christ our Savior who saved us from our prideful swaggering about and who saved us from our just as much prideful sniveling to boot.
But it seems that everybody is so busy making a living on their point of view that peace gets lost. I am sure not perfect in helping keep the peace! I am finding myself in between groups who have polar opposite ideas who claim to have the correct science and that is frustrating.
The enemy is satan and the world and sin, not those who claim to know our Savior and not those who claim to reverence the Word of God. I believe that the other enemy is capitalism too…very sorry. But some groups take a stance and gain a following and money trail based on that stance and heaven forbid if anyone gives a snivel of disagreement that may disrupt a good living…ugh.
Help us God!
So you really think that soft tissue could withstand 10’s of millions of years?
Why on earth would you write this: [quote=“grog, post:77, topic:35775”]
And all of this needs to be done in a way that honors Jesus Christ our Savior who saved us from our prideful swaggering
[/quote]
And follow it up with this:[quote=“grog, post:77, topic:35775”]
But some groups take a stance and gain a following and money trail based on that stance and heaven forbid if anyone gives a snivel of disagreement that may disrupt a good living…ugh.
[/quote]
Why do you insist ruining a very good and inspiring point, by doing a 180 mid-post and start accusing people of sticking to their views for monetary reasons? That’s very unfair regardless of who your target is.
I have read a number of accounts by great theologians who suggest that Cain, a sinner regardless of the mark pursue protection from what he potentially believed to be the wrath from family members against his for the death blow to his brother. I do stuff like this all of the time. I know that God has my back but I worry anyway. That is what many believe is going on with Cain when building a “city”
I know you hate this part … but it just takes a little bit of reading. But the hardest part is explaining why we don’t find dinosaur bodies like we find mammoth bodies… not all dinosaurs lived in the tropics… or why we don’t find 6000 year old mammoths locked up in rock like they were dinosaur fossils!
Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained
Artwork by Scott Hartman reveals the bone structure of T. rex.
Credit: © Scott Hartman / All rights reserved
The research, headed by Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University, explains how proteins — and possibly even DNA — can survive millennia. Schweitzer and her colleagues first raised this question in 2005, when they found the seemingly impossible: soft tissue preserved inside the leg of an adolescent T. rex unearthed in Montana.
“What we found was unusual, because it was still soft and still transparent and still flexible,” Schweitzer told LiveScience.
Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex.
The researchers also analyzed other fossils for the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, Schweitzer said.
“The obvious question, though, was how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years. In a new study published today (Nov. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron.”
“Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.”
“After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.”
“The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots,” Schweitzer said. “They basically act like formaldehyde.”
“Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.”
“Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels.”
" They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years."
Searching for soft tissue
"Dinosaurs’ iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, may explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier. The specimens Schweitzer works with, including skin, show evidence of excellent preservation. The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting they were buried quickly. They’re also buried in sandstone, which is porous and may wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes that would otherwise degrade the bone. "
“Schweitzer is set to search for more dinosaur soft tissue this summer. “I’d like to find a honking big T. rex that’s completely articulated that’s still in the ground, or something similar,” she said. To preserve the chemistry of potential soft tissue, the specimens must not be treated with preservatives or glue, as most fossil bones are, she said. And they need to be tested quickly, as soft tissue could degrade once exposed to modern air and humidity.”
isn’t it true that how money matters are handled in Christian ministries on the leadership end can significantly lead to how the flock is effectively led. Just like how the consultant was paid a lot by Johnson and Johnson to tell them to make the holes bigger on the Baby powder bottle in order to make more profit…in the same light question the financial integrity of ministry leadership and financial paradigms that may inhibit groups from pursuing the truth and this may be one of the most simplest of ingredients that gives a resolve to division occurring and bolster the production of spiritual fruit! AIG gets a paycheck for their stance and Biologos for theirs. Who would tend to give a hoot about the other in the name of peace in Christ even when a person’s livlihood may be at stake? Right? I believe this because I see it in myself from time to time.
I am amazed at the brilliance of Jesus in his sermon on the mount how worry about money and wealth goes hand in hand with Biblical hypocrisy. he is exactly right! It sounds like a tangent but I believe this directly related to some of the divisions we see going on.
Age and evolution are two completely different topics and are unrelated. Because we see age does not equate to evolution being true yet evolution as we define it today needs long ages.
When God created the heavens and the earth, the physical forces and formulas that could have been engaged in this miraculous process when He created may be quite difficult to interpret through the lenses of science don’t you think? And when God created the flood by supernatural means that enraged the earth in His wrath against mankind, the physical forces and formulas used to perform such a feat may also be additionally very confusing in the lenses of science as it would have never encounters such an event to know how to compare it and interpret it.
I am a science lover. But I remain very skeptical about science’s ability to interpret God and His creative methodologies. Wine appears old and is different than water in many respects. But Jesus created it from water. If the earth appears old, this does not necessarily mean that it is and since the Bible suggests that it isn’t, then we as Christians need to hesitate in our assumptions and guesses based on scientific observation.
So as long as this does not support evolution in your mind. Long ages does not mean evolution makes sense. That is the issue I am most concerned about. Some of my favorite theologians are old earth creationists which do not disturb the theology surrounding the gospel nearly as badly as theistic evolutionism does.
That looks like a partial thought @grog. So long as “what” (?) does not support evolution in my mind? An Old Earth makes evolution practically inevitable… especially since even Creationists are starting to discuss “hyper-fast” speciation after the release of animals from the Ark.
Ring Species prove speciation can happen in almost in “Real Time”. And once you have speciation, you automatically have Common Descent, and the ability for 2 similar populations to respond to their environment in distinct ways leading to dramatically distinct animals.
We have talked about this before. Lions and Tigers, evolving from a common population, headed in 2 different directions, leading to two very different kinds of animals:
In Africa, the big cats became social, with the male having a distinctive mane. In India and Asia, tigers are very solitary, and have stripes that help them camouflage their bulk in a jungle setting that would not be suitable for a wide open savannah.
And yet, as you know, the 2 populations have not genetically moved so much apart as the animals appearances and behavior, because they can still produce fertile offspring, known as Ligers and Tigons. By your measure of change, these 2 feline groups should be so different that they would have the chance of producing fertile offspring as Eagles and Falcons!
Hi Greg,
It’s good that you’re discussing actual evidence now. It’s good to focus on the Bible and theological issues, but you do still need to account for the evidence, even if simply by saying that there must be other factors at work that we know nothing about. What troubles me is seeing it dismissed out of hand as “presupposition” or “religion” without any attempt whatsoever being made to justify claims that it is based on presupposition and not evidence. It sounds ad-hominem at best and borderline dishonest at worst.
Just a couple of remarks on your comments here.
I know that Tas Walker of creation.com has responded to Wiens’s article. Personally I didn’t find Walker’s response at all satisfactory. I wrote some thoughts of my own about his response in another thread on this forum back in February. To summarise: it adopts an unnecessary inflammatory and confrontational tone that is unhelpful and distracting, and many of the claims he makes on a technical level are simply not true.
As others have pointed out, the state of the soft tissue was not consistent with an age of less than six thousand years. It has not yet yielded any sequenceable DNA for starters — in a young earth, we should have sequenced the entire T-rex genome by now.
In actual fact, nobody knows how long soft tissue remnants can survive before becoming completely mineralised. It depends largely on the conditions of fossilisation, and there are a lot of unknown unknowns. In any case, the ages of the fossils were very, very well established and very, very tightly constrained by radiometric dating and other high precision methods.
You’ll need to provide a source for this as it is a new one to me.
I’ve read both the RATE report on helium diffusion in zircons and the various responses to it (Gary Loechelt, Kevin Henke and Randy Isaac).
Unfortunately the various reviews have noted numerous serious purely technical flaws in the RATE team’s work that totally undermine the credibility of their research. For example, they adjusted some twenty-year-old data by a factor of ten to account for “typographical errors.” You simply do not do this. It is not good science to use data whose integrity is in question; it should be discarded, and the original experiment re-done, especially if the original lab notes are no longer available.
They also hand-waved several uncertainties as only affecting the result “by a factor of two or so” or “by an order of magnitude or so” but it only takes half a dozen errors of “an order of magnitude or so” to get you from thousands to billions. The effects of both pressure and anisotropy were ignored, even though other research shows that both of these would be significant.
The RATE team have dismissed the critiques of their work as “petty and nitpicking.” However, to the best of my knowledge, they have not provided any calculations to demonstrate that the critiques really are as petty and nitpicking as they claim that they are. In any case, if you’ve worked with science or technology for any length of time, one thing that you learn fairly early on is that you have to be petty and nitpicking, because seemingly small and inconsequential errors have a nasty habit of not being as small and inconsequential as they first appear. Just read about the butterfly effect if you don’t believe me.
3 Likes
I have said this before and will say again…determining ancient history is more history and less science. When I took some history classes in college, the recurring theme was that history is NEVER fact but rather interpretations. Just the history about Abe Lincoln seen through conservative vs liberal eyes will result in tremendously different results that are almost opposite in some ways. If human kind does this to 200 year history then my guess is that both young earth and really old earth guys are both really really wrong about what they thinking on history 1000’s, or millions of years ago. I personally tend towards chalking some of these things as “mystery” now worship our One and Only God who is outstanding and transcendent beyond human comprehension. Mystery resolved later when we meet Him.
I will put out there a challenge regarding RATE etc. I don’t understand the Helium in zircon crystals issue but if this does indicate that an earth billions of years old out of the question and mainstream science has chosen to ignore, then this is no different than RATE fudging numbers (as I only assume you are correct in your suggestion)
Greg, your analogy is not valid.
The age of the earth is based entirely on mathematics and measurement. The motivations and political machinations surrounding the history of Abraham Lincoln are not.
1 Like
As we have gone completely off topic, will close this thread. If you wish to address some of the splinter topics, please start a new post with them.
1 Like