PDA

View Full Version : Uncovering A Dinosaur, From Skin To Bones



BAMAPHIN 22
03-18-2008, 10:18 AM
"This is the closest many people will ever get to seeing what large parts of a dinosaur actually looked like, in the flesh," said Phillip Manning, a paleontologist at Manchester University in England, a member of the international team researching Dakota.

"This is not the usual disjointed sentence or fragment of a word that the fossil records offer up as evidence of past life. This is a full chapter."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/18/tech/main3946627.shtml

Dolphan7
03-18-2008, 12:46 PM
It is amazing that this thing is intact after all these years. Reminds me of the mammoth found a few years ago, fully intact.

We look for a cause that should kill the animals, and yet not break to pieces their bodies, or even mutilate them; a cause which would in some cases disintegrate the skeletons without weathering the bones. We look for a cause that would not merely do this as a widespread plague or murrain might, but one which would bury the bodies as well as kill the animals, which would take up gravel and clay and lay them down again and which would sweep together animals of different sizes and species and mix them with trees and other debris of vegetation. What cause competent to do this is known to us? Water would drown the animals yet not mutilate their bodies. It would kill them all with complete impartiality, irrespective of their strength, age or size. It would take up clay and earth and cover the bodies with it. Not only could it do this, but it is the only cause known capable of doing the work on a scale commensurate with the effects we see in the world today.

A flood is the only known cause for the sudden appearance of plants and animals in the fossil record.

Tetragrammaton
03-18-2008, 07:41 PM
I am really amazed as to what science continues to find out.

Mike13
03-19-2008, 01:13 PM
Thats amazing, I would love to see what it looks like when they're done.

alen1
03-19-2008, 04:49 PM
I am really amazed as to what science continues to find out.


Me to. I wish I could do something like that. But then again I rather do something with Sports Management, hopefully I make it to that.

Celtkin
03-19-2008, 10:04 PM
It is amazing that this thing is intact after all these years. Reminds me of the mammoth found a few years ago, fully intact.

We look for a cause that should kill the animals, and yet not break to pieces their bodies, or even mutilate them; a cause which would in some cases disintegrate the skeletons without weathering the bones. We look for a cause that would not merely do this as a widespread plague or murrain might, but one which would bury the bodies as well as kill the animals, which would take up gravel and clay and lay them down again and which would sweep together animals of different sizes and species and mix them with trees and other debris of vegetation. What cause competent to do this is known to us? Water would drown the animals yet not mutilate their bodies. It would kill them all with complete impartiality, irrespective of their strength, age or size. It would take up clay and earth and cover the bodies with it. Not only could it do this, but it is the only cause known capable of doing the work on a scale commensurate with the effects we see in the world today.

A flood is the only known cause for the sudden appearance of plants and animals in the fossil record.
Bro, here did you copy that bottom part from? I'd be interested to read the rest and I didn't see a citation.

The problem with this flood idea is that there is no history of a global flood or of a mass extinction due to a flood other than a few floods of the volcanic type. There is geologic history of mass extinction due to severe climate change and there is strong evidence of meter thick small soil particle layers that suggest that the earth's crust was moved great distances by an impact or by volcanic activity.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/extinction_sidebar_000907.html

Almost without exception, those extinctions happened before the biblical world was created if you believe the biblical account and the math and if you compare that to the geologic record. By the most liberal accounts, the mammoths were completely extinct by 11,000 years ago (http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/larson/mammuthus.html). That would have been roughly 7,000 years before the biblical creation event and even longer than that from the biblical flood account.

These date have been confirmed by radiocarbon dating which, as you know, is based on the physics of the decay of three isotopes of carbon.

Dolphan7
03-20-2008, 02:06 PM
Bro, here did you copy that bottom part from? I'd be interested to read the rest and I didn't see a citation.
It is from a book titled "Mammoth and the Flood" by Sir Henry Howorth. Here is a reference to it from a lecture by Alfred Rehwinkel.

http://dshortt.homestead.com/THE_FLOOD_IN_THE_LIGHT_OF_THE_BIBLE__GEOLOGY_AND_ARCHAEOLOGY.htm



The problem with this flood idea is that there is no history of a global flood or of a mass extinction due to a flood other than a few floods of the volcanic type.There is ample evidence of a global flood. I couldn't post them all here due to space concerns.


There is geologic history of mass extinction due to severe climate change and there is strong evidence of meter thick small soil particle layers that suggest that the earth's crust was moved great distances by an impact or by volcanic activity.Mass extinction due to climate change - what do you think would have been the climate post-flood? Dramatic change in climate of course. We see in the fossil record a temperate climate with lush vegetation the world over. Post-flood is what we see today, or pretty close to it. The climate change didn't cause the mass extinction, but the flood did and the climate change happened instantaneously in geological time.



Almost without exception, those extinctions happened before the biblical world was created if you believe the biblical account and the math and if you compare that to the geologic record. By the most liberal accounts, the mammoths were completely extinct by 11,000 years ago (http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/larson/mammuthus.html). That would have been roughly 7,000 years before the biblical creation event and even longer than that from the biblical flood account.How do you know when the biblical flood happened? I am a young earth creationist, meaning thousands, not millions or billions. I think those that claim a 6000-7000 year old age of the earth are limiting themselves to discovery. Much like when science takes out supernatural explanations from the model, they limit their scope of discovery.


These date have been confirmed by radiocarbon dating which, as you know, is based on the physics of the decay of three isotopes of carbon.Really? Is such dating techniques absolutely 100% reliable? 100% accurate? Fool proof? Are we basing these dating techniques on known absolutes? or assumptions?


Dr. Snelling began by pointing out three assumptions that underlie radiometric dating methods:
1) Like stopwatches, radioactive clocks are cleared and restarted at the time rocks form so that from that moment forward daughter isotope atoms accumulate from the radioactive decay of parent isotopes present in the rock, 2) No external factors influence or contaminate the accumulation of daughter atoms from parent atoms, and 3) Radioactive decay rates have remained constant over billions of years.

ABrownLamp
03-20-2008, 02:53 PM
It is from a book titled "Mammoth and the Flood" by Sir Henry Howorth. Here is a reference to it from a lecture by Alfred Rehwinkel.

http://dshortt.homestead.com/THE_FLOOD_IN_THE_LIGHT_OF_THE_BIBLE__GEOLOGY_AND_ARCHAEOLOGY.htm


There is ample evidence of a global flood. I couldn't post them all here due to space concerns.

Mass extinction due to climate change - what do you think would have been the climate post-flood? Dramatic change in climate of course. We see in the fossil record a temperate climate with lush vegetation the world over. Post-flood is what we see today, or pretty close to it. The climate change didn't cause the mass extinction, but the flood did and the climate change happened instantaneously in geological time.


How do you know when the biblical flood happened? I am a young earth creationist, meaning thousands, not millions or billions. I think those that claim a 6000-7000 year old age of the earth are limiting themselves to discovery. Much like when science takes out supernatural explanations from the model, they limit their scope of discovery.

Really? Is such dating techniques absolutely 100% reliable? 100% accurate? Fool proof? Are we basing these dating techniques on known absolutes? or assumptions?



Oh wow. You are still using the same info that myself and a number of other posters have shown you to be incorrect dozens and dozens of times over the course of literally, years. I mean are you really going to bring up the "dating techniques have flaws" argument again? Or the "theres no other explanation except a flood" post. Or the "earth is not billions of years old" argument? Seriously? After all of these years? Still...

Dolphan7
03-20-2008, 03:04 PM
Oh wow. You are still using the same info that myself and a number of other posters have shown you to be incorrect dozens and dozens of times over the course of literally, years. I mean are you really going to bring up the "dating techniques have flaws" argument again? Or the "theres no other explanation except a flood" post. Or the "earth is not billions of years old" argument? Seriously? After all of these years? Still...Yep!

Are you still holding to the belief in Evolution and that it is a proven fact? Still? After all these years?

Welcome back to the forum by the way!:up:

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-20-2008, 04:08 PM
There is a lot of evidence that point out that an astroid is the cause of mass extinction. Including a crash site for the astroid and a layer of a certain material all acrossed the world on the same line that only comes from space.

Dolphan7
03-20-2008, 04:23 PM
There is a lot of evidence that point out that an astroid is the cause of mass extinction. Including a crash site for the astroid and a layer of a certain material all acrossed the world on the same line that only comes from space.There is ample evidence of some sort of catastrophic cataclysm, of which an asteroid is only one explanation.

If an asteroid hit earth of the size and impact to create a global extinction and climate change, where is it? Where did it hit?.............

Wouldn't you think that all ife on this planet would be dead after something of this magnitude?

Yet we have life...again....so......

Against all statistics and probability and ......evidence.......life came into existance on this planet in the very beginning by natural causes......the first time.......


Then it happened again post asteroid?

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-20-2008, 04:57 PM
There is ample evidence of some sort of catastrophic cataclysm, of which an asteroid is only one explanation.

If an asteroid hit earth of the size and impact to create a global extinction and climate change, where is it? Where did it hit?.............

Wouldn't you think that all ife on this planet would be dead after something of this magnitude?

Yet we have life...again....so......

Against all statistics and probability and ......evidence.......life came into existance on this planet in the very beginning by natural causes......the first time.......


Then it happened again post asteroid?

It is on the southern tip of Mexico. You can see it from space.

No I wouldn't think all life on this plaent would be dead after something like that happens. For one the earth is round. Also with the amount of places they have found life where you wouldn't think there would be life on this planet would leads me to believe things can survive.

Dolphan7
03-20-2008, 06:16 PM
It is on the southern tip of Mexico. You can see it from space.

No I wouldn't think all life on this plaent would be dead after something like that happens. For one the earth is round. Also with the amount of places they have found life where you wouldn't think there would be life on this planet would leads me to believe things can survive.You mean this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event

Probably the most convincing evidence for a worldwide catastrophe was the discovery of the crater which has since been named Chicxulub Crater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater). This so-called smoking gun is centered on the Yucatán Peninsula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucat%C3%A1n_Peninsula) of Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico) and was discovered by Tony Camargo and Glen Pentfield while working as geophysicists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophysicist) for the Mexican oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum) company PEMEX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEMEX). What they reported as a circular feature later turned out to be a crater estimated to be 180 kilometers in diameter. Other researchers would later find that the end-Cretaceous extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs had lasted for thousands of years instead of millions of years as had previously been thought. This would be the final piece of evidence that convinced the vast majority of scientists that this extinction resulted from a point event that is most probably an extraterrestrial impact and not from increased volcanism and climate change (which would spread its main effect over a much longer time period).

What is interesting is this:


Recently, several craters around the world have been dated to approximately the same age as Chicxulub — for example, the Silverpit crater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverpit_crater) in the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) and the Boltysh crater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltysh_crater) in Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine). This has led to the suggestion that the Chicxulub impact was one of several that occurred almost simultaneously, perhaps due to a disrupted comet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet) impacting the Earth in a similar manner to the collision of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker-Levy_9) with Jupiter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_%28planet%29) in 1994.

This is a fascinating field of study. Something happened back then. Meteor shower combined with catastrophic vulcanism perhaps.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-20-2008, 06:54 PM
You mean this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event


What is interesting is this:



This is a fascinating field of study. Something happened back then. Meteor shower combined with catastrophic vulcanism perhaps.

That is interesting. Until we get a time machine chances are we will never know for sure what happened.

Celtkin
03-20-2008, 07:05 PM
It is from a book titled "Mammoth and the Flood" by Sir Henry Howorth. Here is a reference to it from a lecture by Alfred Rehwinkel.

http://dshortt.homestead.com/THE_FLOOD_IN_THE_LIGHT_OF_THE_BIBLE__GEOLOGY_AND_ARCHAEOLOGY.htm


There is ample evidence of a global flood. I couldn't post them all here due to space concerns.

Mass extinction due to climate change - what do you think would have been the climate post-flood? Dramatic change in climate of course. We see in the fossil record a temperate climate with lush vegetation the world over. Post-flood is what we see today, or pretty close to it. The climate change didn't cause the mass extinction, but the flood did and the climate change happened instantaneously in geological time.


How do you know when the biblical flood happened? I am a young earth creationist, meaning thousands, not millions or billions. I think those that claim a 6000-7000 year old age of the earth are limiting themselves to discovery. Much like when science takes out supernatural explanations from the model, they limit their scope of discovery.

Really? Is such dating techniques absolutely 100% reliable? 100% accurate? Fool proof? Are we basing these dating techniques on known absolutes? or assumptions?






I'd invite you to take as much space as necessary to prove a global flood as described in the bible.

As far as when the flood occurred, it must have happened sometime after the biblical account of the earth's creation ~4,000 years -- if you are to believe the math given in the bible. Could that be wrong but the rest of Genesis be right?

No technique is 100% accurate but yes, radiocarborn dating is accurate to a very narrow range of time because isotopes don't disobey the laws of physics. In the case of tissue, the carbon footprint is indicative of food source and since most animals don't eat rock, the analogy is not applicable.

Celtkin
03-20-2008, 07:24 PM
How do you know when the biblical flood happened? I am a young earth creationist, meaning thousands, not millions or billions. I think those that claim a 6000-7000 year old age of the earth are limiting themselves to discovery. Much like when science takes out supernatural explanations from the model, they limit their scope of discovery.

Really? Is such dating techniques absolutely 100% reliable? 100% accurate? Fool proof? Are we basing these dating techniques on known absolutes? or assumptions?



I forgot to address the bolded part.

Science attempts to explain the "supernatural" and not dismiss it. Before science, eclipses, photosynthesis, etc were "supernatural". Dismissing any fact that fails to support a myth seems to be a hallmark of many belief systems. You see this throughout history with the persecution of scientist by the church. If religious myth had prevailed, we'd still teaching that the earth was the center of the universe.

Dolphan7
03-20-2008, 08:31 PM
I'd invite you to take as much space as necessary to prove a global flood as described in the bible.Prove the flood? Now I have to prove the flood? All I said is that there is ample evidence of a flood. No Comment on what I have already posted?
http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/evidence-of-the-flood.html

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/gen/the_flood.shtml


As far as when the flood occurred, it must have happened sometime after the biblical account of the earth's creation ~4,000 years -- if you are to believe the math given in the bible. Could that be wrong but the rest of Genesis be right?There is no math given in the bible. There is no date for creation week given in the bible. Some have tried to determine that date based on geneologies, but I don't think the info is complete enough to make a firm date. All I believe is that it is thousands, not millions or billions. Please note......I can go with long age creationsm as well. Remember the bible doesn't provide a date for creation week. But.......evolutionists MUST have long ages of the earth in order for the "theory" to work.


No technique is 100% accurate but yes, radiocarborn dating is accurate to a very narrow range of time because isotopes don't disobey the laws of physics. In the case of tissue, the carbon footprint is indicative of food source and since most animals don't eat rock, the analogy is not applicable.Glad you agree it isn't 100% accurate. Here is further evidence of that. A study that does three different dating methods on the same rocks, and gets three different results.

http://www.icr.org/article/42/

Dolphan7
03-20-2008, 08:56 PM
I forgot to address the bolded part.

Science attempts to explain the "supernatural" and not dismiss it. Before science, eclipses, photosynthesis, etc were "supernatural". Dismissing any fact that fails to support a myth seems to be a hallmark of many belief systems. You see this throughout history with the persecution of scientist by the church. If religious myth had prevailed, we'd still teaching that the earth was the center of the universe.

Ok (pulls knife out of side).

The belief system of evolution, that some people believe in, and most of the scientific community believe in, dismisses God. In fact it is opposed to God and the Super Natural. It attempts to explain our origins, yet takes one of the two best theories off the table, leaving only one possible conclusion. That isn't science my friend, it is a very biased and closed minded community of believers - in Science. And it IS a belief system, a religion all to itself.

If you are a creationist - well you must not be a scientist then.

Intelligent Design - Pfft!

Creation scientists/ ID have been shut out of the classrooms so to speak. Both at the collegiate level and in public schools.

They have a monopoly on the sciences, and the funding (very important key element here). Effectively blocking and preventing any discourse on the matter.

Kinda like when an overzealous moderator attempts to keep the "real science" from the other science by creating a religion forum!

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-21-2008, 01:48 AM
Ok (pulls knife out of side).

The belief system of evolution, that some people believe in, and most of the scientific community believe in, dismisses God. In fact it is opposed to God and the Super Natural. It attempts to explain our origins, yet takes one of the two best theories off the table, leaving only one possible conclusion. That isn't science my friend, it is a very biased and closed minded community of believers - in Science. And it IS a belief system, a religion all to itself.

If you are a creationist - well you must not be a scientist then.

Intelligent Design - Pfft!

Creation scientists/ ID have been shut out of the classrooms so to speak. Both at the collegiate level and in public schools.

They have a monopoly on the sciences, and the funding (very important key element here). Effectively blocking and preventing any discourse on the matter.

Kinda like when an overzealous moderator attempts to keep the "real science" from the other science by creating a religion forum!

That is not true. You can have evolution and God.

If you are talking about super natural have you seen quantum physics? Heck with Quantum Physics they probably could explain how water can turn into wine.

Pagan
03-21-2008, 06:46 AM
I'm just amazed that yet again another science thread must immediately become a religious one.

This was about finding a dinosaur with fossilized skin, all of a sudden it's a vessel for one member to try to prove - yet again - that something in the bible really happened.

Can we have ONE scientific thread that doesn't turn into an attempt to prove a certain religion's merits? Let's keep the god of the bible over in the religion forum, mmmm-kay? :rolleyes:


Kinda like when an overzealous moderator attempts to keep the "real science" from the other science by creating a religion forum!
That was uncalled for. :shakeno:

Celtkin
03-21-2008, 08:32 AM
Ok (pulls knife out of side).

The belief system of evolution, that some people believe in, and most of the scientific community believe in, dismisses God. In fact it is opposed to God and the Super Natural. It attempts to explain our origins, yet takes one of the two best theories off the table, leaving only one possible conclusion. That isn't science my friend, it is a very biased and closed minded community of believers - in Science. And it IS a belief system, a religion all to itself.

If you are a creationist - well you must not be a scientist then.

Intelligent Design - Pfft!

Creation scientists/ ID have been shut out of the classrooms so to speak. Both at the collegiate level and in public schools.

They have a monopoly on the sciences, and the funding (very important key element here). Effectively blocking and preventing any discourse on the matter.

Kinda like when an overzealous moderator attempts to keep the "real science" from the other science by creating a religion forum!

There are many scientists who can't accept the myth of the Genesis creation but believe in God.

Many scientists fail to get funded. This is not an exclusive problem for creationists. Typically, the only projects that get funded are ones that are sound and that have a hypothesis that is likely be proven.

As for being an overzealous "Mod" -- actually I'm an Admin. Mods can't create forums. Overzealous would have been to ban religion discussion in the science forum and not creating a new forum for Religion. The religion forum was made to give the subject a dedicated forum and all comments from others about the idea have been positive.

The accusation that the creation of the new forum was to "prevent any discourse" about the subject is irresponsible, especially when the accusation is made inside a thread in which we are discussing what I am supposedly suppressing.

I haven't had a chance to review the material you offered in the earlier reply on this page because I'm off to the lab to do so "real science" but will read it when I get home. :lol:

alen1
03-21-2008, 12:24 PM
Man you guys are smart (not being sarcastic, im really impressed).

Dolphan7
03-21-2008, 01:15 PM
Gentlemen,

Any science that deals in dinosaurs, evolution, age of the earth, fossils, origins, big bang etc......


is going to invariably include religious discussion. Fact.

Attempting to put it into it's own forum won't prevent that.

The two subjects will be forever entwined in this country.

Pagan
03-21-2008, 01:47 PM
The only time it "invariably includes religious discussion" is when you bring it into the discussion.

You never see anyone else do that, do you?

Fact.

Dolphan7
03-21-2008, 02:32 PM
The only time it "invariably includes religious discussion" is when you bring it into the discussion.

You never see anyone else do that, do you?

Fact.I agree with that. And that will change......


when I stop breathing.:up:

Pagan
03-21-2008, 02:42 PM
Then don't whine when people "attack" you. :tongue:

I mean seriously, people come into this forum for discussion of science, and you pretty much use it as a vessel to proselytize, even if you don't realize you're doing it. Then again, I'm pretty sure you realize it. ;)

You're putting your beliefs where people don't want to see them. :D

Dolphan7
03-21-2008, 03:05 PM
Then don't whine when people "attack" you. :tongue:

I mean seriously, people come into this forum for discussion of science, and you pretty much use it as a vessel to proselytize, even if you don't realize you're doing it. Then again, I'm pretty sure you realize it. ;)

You're putting your beliefs where people don't want to see them. :D
Well there is always the Ignore feature.:up:

Pagan
03-21-2008, 03:11 PM
So what you're basically saying is that you'll continue to shove your beliefs down everyone's throats in forums where they don't belong, no matter who doesn't like it.

And you wonder why people can't stomach Christians. :lol:

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-21-2008, 04:21 PM
Gentlemen,

Any science that deals in dinosaurs, evolution, age of the earth, fossils, origins, big bang etc......


is going to invariably include religious discussion. Fact.

Attempting to put it into it's own forum won't prevent that.

The two subjects will be forever entwined in this country.

If it wasn't for religion's desire to take science out of religion there wouldn't be a problem. Science does not work if you the answer is simply, "GOD did it".

Science is mearly trying to figure out how God did it or how he went about doing it. Even Einstien was quoted in saying how he made his discoveries by trying to figure out what God thinks.

Celtkin
03-21-2008, 06:39 PM
Prove the flood? Now I have to prove the flood? All I said is that there is ample evidence of a flood. No Comment on what I have already posted?
http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/evidence-of-the-flood.html

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/gen/the_flood.shtml

Evidence of local flooding in many places over the past several thousands is an easier interpretation without more evidence of a global flood. These sediments don't exist at the same layer, throughout the world.

The bigger issue of a global flood and the Noah animal pair thing is that a few thousands of years of inbreeding would be evident in the DNA record and it is simply not there. Look at the effect of a few thousand years of inbreeding in cheetahs (http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/biology/CBCN/genetics/din_proveit.htm).

Also here:

http://www.cheetah.org/?nd=41

The fact there is wide genetic diversity is further proof in my mind that evolution was the driving factor for species. There are just way too many things that are poorly designed in nearly every species for God to have been solely responsible.


There is no math given in the bible. There is no date for creation week given in the bible. Some have tried to determine that date based on geneologies, but I don't think the info is complete enough to make a firm date. All I believe is that it is thousands, not millions or billions. Please note......I can go with long age creationsm as well. Remember the bible doesn't provide a date for creation week. But.......evolutionists MUST have long ages of the earth in order for the "theory" to work.

You put theory (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory) in quotes. What part of the term do you not agree with in regards to this issue?

Science doesn't accept an old earth idea because we need it to be that way. We believe it because there is overwhelming evidence that it is the truth. Contrary to a belief of faith, science relies on proof and solid evidence.

There is an unbroken lineage from Adam to Christ including ages of each person. The math is fairly easy to calculate if you add those up and add ~7 days for the creation.


Glad you agree it isn't 100% accurate. Here is further evidence of that. A study that does three different dating methods on the same rocks, and gets three different results.

http://www.icr.org/article/42/

I stopped reading when I got the part:


Metamorphic rocks are not always easy to date using radio-isotopes.

Mammoths don't derive their carbon from rocks. They get their carbon from plants.

Dolphan7
03-21-2008, 07:52 PM
If it wasn't for religion's desire to take science out of religion there wouldn't be a problem. Science does not work if you the answer is simply, "GOD did it".

Science is mearly trying to figure out how God did it or how he went about doing it. Even Einstien was quoted in saying how he made his discoveries by trying to figure out what God thinks.Your first paragraph is not true,
Religion, Creationism does not seek to remove science from anything.


Your second paragraph is true - Science is very useful in learning about the world around us.

The problem is when science removes God from the equation and attempts to explain everything by natural causes. This is typically based on the scientists biased world view. Then it isn't science anymore, not the science that is looking at all the possible answers, eliminating none. At that point it is religion, and a faith based religion at that.

You either believe in evolution, or you believe in creation.

Either way it is a belief.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-21-2008, 08:17 PM
Your first paragraph is not true,
Religion, Creationism does not seek to remove science from anything.


Your second paragraph is true - Science is very useful in learning about the world around us.

The problem is when science removes God from the equation and attempts to explain everything by natural causes. This is typically based on the scientists biased world view. Then it isn't science anymore, not the science that is looking at all the possible answers, eliminating none. At that point it is religion, and a faith based religion at that.

You either believe in evolution, or you believe in creation.

Either way it is a belief.


What is the difference between natural causes and God?

If there was scientific evidence that you can find without the bible or any spiritual texts that proved creationism, then it would fit as science. If you have to try to disprove physics and science to fit a theory, it isn't much of a theory. Plus you cannot say, "God did it". That isn't science. That isn't science at all.

Also no matter what science proves, even if it proves evolution to be 100% correct. It is still all God.

Dolphan7
03-21-2008, 09:06 PM
Evidence of local flooding in many places over the past several thousands is an easier interpretation without more evidence of a global flood. These sediments don't exist at the same layer, throughout the world.Of course it would be an easier explanation for some, but that doesn't mean it is the best interpretation, or the true interpretation. So you agree there is evidence of flooding, just on a smaller local scale. Good. You are getting there. Like I said, there is much support of a global flood. When you look at all the evidence in the big picture, it is fairly impressive. We do know that there are sea shells all over the world, even on top of mountains, so by this we know that at one time every part of the earth was under water. We know this. What you would argue is that it wasn't simultaneous and we are back to global or local/different time periods.

What is interesting is that we see signs of catastrophism all over the world, and we don't see much evidence of uniformitarianism.

Fossils, rapidly formed by catastrophism, not long ages.
Vast fossil graveyards are found all over the world. Sometimes there are thousands,or more, creatures buried and fossilized together.
How does something get fossilized? Not by long, slow processes. An organism must be covered rapidly by the sediments to keep out scavengers and oxygen. It would take a catastrophic event to bury thousands of animals in these graveyards, which are located all over the world. Large fossil graveyards have been discovered in New Mexico, Canada, Wyoming, Tanzania, Belgium, Mongolia, the Gobi Desert of Central Asia, and many other places. We know there were catastrophic events in the past, just that you say many, I say one.

Canyon formation takes long ages according to current scientific belief. The Grand Canyon in Arizona is supposed to have taken million of years to develop. Yet when Mt St Helens erupted we see that it formed a fairly good size canyon in just one day. It is called the Little Grand Canyon. So we know that it does not take millions of years to make a canyon.

The Grand Canyon in Az is of particular interest: It is full of unconformities.
An unconformity represents a time in the geologic column where rock layers are missing.This unconformity in the Grand Canyon divides rock layers with fossils from those with no fossils.Unconformities are found everywhere across the world.According to the USGS this unconformity in the Grand Canyon is around a 1.2 billion year gap.There is no sign of ero­sion between the two layers, which means they were laid down rapidly one on top of the other. The top, surface layer is the Kaibab Limestone and is dated to 250 million years ago.How can the top surface layer of the Grand Canyon be dated to 250 million years ago?What’s been happening for the past 250 million years?



The bigger issue of a global flood and the Noah animal pair thing is that a few thousands of years of inbreeding would be evident in the DNA record and it is simply not there. Look at the effect of a few thousand years of inbreeding in cheetahs (http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/biology/CBCN/genetics/din_proveit.htm).

Also here:

http://www.cheetah.org/?nd=41
From your link:


About 10,000 years ago - because of climate changes - all but one species of the cheetah, jubatus, became extinct. With the drastic reduction in their numbers, close relatives were forced to breed, and the cheetah became genetically inbred, meaning all cheetahs are closely related. Sounds to me like a catastrophic event causing a climate change, which in turn killed off all but one species of cheetah. This is more evidence of a world wide catastrophic flood than proof of evolution. Why are you assuming that there should be some sort of evidence of inbreeding in the DNA? Could the cheetah be a unique species? We do know that the DNA/Genes deteriorate over time as mutations and copying errors creep in, which points to a richer fuller more vaible gene pool in earlier times. So we would expect deterioration over time. This is why Cain could marry his sister in Genesis, but today you shouldn't marry closer than your cousin.


The fact there is wide genetic diversity is further proof in my mind that evolution was the driving factor for species. There are just way too many things that are poorly designed in nearly every species for God to have been solely responsible.And yet, we see no evidence of any kind of any species evolving into another species. The fossil records shows complete forms. The current animal kingdom shows complete forms. We see nothing in the fossil record are alive today that is anythig but it's naturally designed complete form.




You put theory (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory) in quotes. What part of the term do you not agree with in regards to this issue?Particles to people. Life sprang from nothing. Darwinian Macroevolution.


Science doesn't accept an old earth idea because we need it to be that way. We believe it because there is overwhelming evidence that it is the truth. Contrary to a belief of faith, science relies on proof and solid evidence.You can't call it science unless you can observe it, test it, repeat it. No one was there to witness creation. You can't recreate it in the lab. You can't observe it. There fore you are left with ......hypothesis, theory, guess....not fact, or solid evidence. You have support for your theory, but only if you have the secret decoder glasses of evolutionary bias to examine it.


There is an unbroken lineage from Adam to Christ including ages of each person. The math is fairly easy to calculate if you add those up and add ~7 days for the creation.Hey if you want to put a date on it go ahead. Not me.





I stopped reading when I got the part:
You should read more. I read all your links.




Mammoths don't derive their carbon from rocks. They get their carbon from plants. We are dating rocks, not mammoths.

Mike13
03-21-2008, 10:17 PM
The belief system of evolution, that some people believe in, and most of the scientific community believe in, dismisses God. In fact it is opposed to God and the Super Natural. It attempts to explain our origins, yet takes one of the two best theories off the table, leaving only one possible conclusion. That isn't science my friend, it is a very biased and closed minded community of believers - in Science. And it IS a belief system, a religion all to itself.


Now thats not true, I believe there is a God and I also believe that life arose through evolution.

Could it be that God created life through evolution?

Dolphan7
03-24-2008, 11:59 AM
Now thats not true, I believe there is a God and I also believe that life arose through evolution.

Could it be that God created life through evolution?You can believe in whatever you want. My point is that evolution belief dominates the scientific community. Evolution theory and belief don't take into consideration the Supernatural, simply because they can't explain it away. It is beyond their scope of understanding.

But regarding you post, I guess it depends on what God you believe in. If you believe in the Christian God of the Bible, then you have some serious discrepancies that need to be rectified in order to justify God co-existing with evolution, or creating it, or starting it.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-24-2008, 12:37 PM
You can believe in whatever you want. My point is that evolution belief dominates the scientific community. Evolution theory and belief don't take into consideration the Supernatural, simply because they can't explain it away. It is beyond their scope of understanding.

But regarding you post, I guess it depends on what God you believe in. If you believe in the Christian God of the Bible, then you have some serious discrepancies that need to be rectified in order to justify God co-existing with evolution, or creating it, or starting it.

It tries to explain the supernatural and tries to get it into a scope so they can understand it.

Science would be lazy if it just said, "God did it."

Dolphan7
03-28-2008, 12:46 AM
It tries to explain the supernatural and tries to get it into a scope so they can understand it.

Science would be lazy if it just said, "God did it."Yah right!

Go into any university earth sciences department and try to show them the overwhelming evidence of a "supernatural" world wide flood and see what happens.

You may consider taking an armed security officer!:wink:

Evolutionists are not interested in God or the Supernatural. Not only can't they explain it, but they reject it because it makes more sense than their theory. Isn't religion err I mean science wonderful?

Joker2thief
03-28-2008, 12:32 PM
Yah right!

Go into any university earth sciences department and try to show them the overwhelming evidence of a "supernatural" world wide flood and see what happens.

You may consider taking an armed security officer!:wink:

Evolutionists are not interested in God or the Supernatural. Not only can't they explain it, but they reject it because it makes more sense than their theory. Isn't religion err I mean science wonderful?

what evidence of a supernatural world wide flood?

Dolphan7
03-28-2008, 01:42 PM
what evidence of a supernatural world wide flood?Like seashells at every known elevation, all over the world, including tops of mountains, indicates that the earth was at one point under water.

Fish fossil beds found on land and in the sea.

Whale fossil beds, not just one, found on land, including in mountains.

We see evidence of some sort of event that caused climate change that happened when we look in the fossil record. We see fossils that appear to have been burried in a catastrophic and rapid mud and sediment grave.

This event obviously caused both climate change and the extinction of lots of species of animals. We see this sudden appearance in the fossil record of these animals, called the Cambrian explosion.

We know that there are hundreds of ancient flood stories from cultures all over the globe. They all refer to a world wide flood.

Dinosuars died off suddenly due to some major event.

Ancient writings refer to creatures that can only be what we call dinosuars.

Petroglyphs made by man - depicting dinosuar shapes.

Recent findings of soft tissue inside a dinosuar bone thought to have been at least 65 million years old.

Recent findings of a fossil of a mammal whose stomach contents included a dinosuar, evidence that mammals and dinosuars lived at the same time.

Mt St. Helens taught us that large canyons, like the Grand Canyon in Az, could be made in just one day, or in a very short period of time, due to a major catastrophic event, like a WW flood.

When we look at the strata in the earths crust, we see all over the world evidence of layers of rock being laid down on top of each other, with no erosion between the layers, pointing to a rapid formation that could only be caused by a world wide catastrophic event like a WW flood.

These are the facts. This is what we know today.

This is just off the top of my head. Now none of these by themselves prove there was a WW flood, but when you start to add it all up it provides very strong evidence in support of a WW flood. And of course I have done it no justice as I am not a scientist and don't speak in science speak, nor am I a writer. But I think you can get the idea.

Joker2thief
03-28-2008, 09:17 PM
not one of those things that you mentioned even as a whole point to to a world wide flood.

Dolphan7
03-29-2008, 02:22 PM
not one of those things that you mentioned even as a whole point to to a world wide flood.Wow. Not even in the remote places of your mind is this even a possibility? I find that hard to understand.

ih8brady
03-30-2008, 05:49 AM
Wow. Not even in the remote places of your mind is this even a possibility? I find that hard to understand.


Maybe because your "examples" are incompatible with the works of thousands of geologists and scientific researchers. Smart, dedicated scientists who care about the truth of nature and science, and are not fundamentalists copying and pasting factoids and falsehoods to prove supernatural literalism.

Dolphan7
03-31-2008, 01:29 PM
Maybe because your "examples" are incompatible with the works of thousands of geologists and scientific researchers. Smart, dedicated scientists who care about the truth of nature and science, and are not fundamentalists copying and pasting factoids and falsehoods to prove supernatural literalism.
You can say that the conclusions are incompatible with the view of many who view that their conclusion of evolution is true. And I would agree with you. The conclusions of evolutionary belief are not the same as the conclusions of creationsists. Science has been hijacked by a belief system in evolution, but further research really does cast much doubt as to the truth of that belief system. Calling it science, and saying that only science that supports this belief system is accepted while all others are rejected isn't proof of anything. Science has it's bias just as scientists have their bias.

But the examples I cited are not conclusions, but facts, that lead to and support my conclusion. The data isn't different. It is the same data, evidence.

Here is another one.

The Great Salt Lake in Utah.
The Salton Sea in California
The Dead Sea in Israel
Lake Natron in Africa
The Caspian Sea in Asia
Urmia in Iran
Eyre North in Australia

These and many other inland lakes are salt lakes. We know this. This is fact. It is the conclusions that are different. Evolutionists come up with their own reasons for this, or predictions. And Creationists believe that since all the earth was at one time under water, that the result would be that there would be left over pockets of salt water lakes in a post flood world.

This is evidence that supports a WW flood.

You can argue the conclusions, but you can't argue the facts.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-31-2008, 02:28 PM
Evolutionists also know that at one point all of earth was under water. There was a time when Earth was completely frozen over. It was WAY before people was on this earth.

Dolphan7
03-31-2008, 04:49 PM
Evolutionists also know that at one point all of earth was under water. There was a time when Earth was completely frozen over. It was WAY before people was on this earth.Be that as it may, the difference is in the time frame of this event. Now there is where the debate kicks into high gear when it turns to the age of the earth.:up:

Pagan
03-31-2008, 05:10 PM
Be that as it may, the difference is in the time frame of this event. Now there is where the debate kicks into high gear when it turns to the age of the earth.:up:
Oh yea...here's where it gets REALLY good.

Strap in, kids. :lol:

Eshlemon
03-31-2008, 05:34 PM
You can say that the conclusions are incompatible with the view of many who view that their conclusion of evolution is true. And I would agree with you. The conclusions of evolutionary belief are not the same as the conclusions of creationsists. Science has been hijacked by a belief system in evolution, but further research really does cast much doubt as to the truth of that belief system. Calling it science, and saying that only science that supports this belief system is accepted while all others are rejected isn't proof of anything. Science has it's bias just as scientists have their bias.

But the examples I cited are not conclusions, but facts, that lead to and support my conclusion. The data isn't different. It is the same data, evidence.

Here is another one.

The Great Salt Lake in Utah.
The Salton Sea in California
The Dead Sea in Israel
Lake Natron in Africa
The Caspian Sea in Asia
Urmia in Iran
Eyre North in Australia

These and many other inland lakes are salt lakes. We know this. This is fact. It is the conclusions that are different. Evolutionists come up with their own reasons for this, or predictions. And Creationists believe that since all the earth was at one time under water, that the result would be that there would be left over pockets of salt water lakes in a post flood world.

This is evidence that supports a WW flood.

You can argue the conclusions, but you can't argue the facts.

Is that you Ben?

'Rebel' Ben Stein Refutes Darwinism (http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2008/03/ben-stein-holds.html)

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-31-2008, 06:12 PM
Be that as it may, the difference is in the time frame of this event. Now there is where the debate kicks into high gear when it turns to the age of the earth.:up:

I don't know. I think it really isn't logically to think that God counts the years by the rotations of the Earth around the sun.

A lot of the bible was written when the thought was that the earth was the center of the universe.

Also an arc wouldn't exactly allow Noah to survive the entire earth being frozen over

Dolphan7
03-31-2008, 06:25 PM
Is that you Ben?

'Rebel' Ben Stein Refutes Darwinism (http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2008/03/ben-stein-holds.html):sidelol:

I heard that he made this movie, but I have not had time to view it.

No comment until I have.

Dolphan7
03-31-2008, 06:39 PM
I don't know. I think it really isn't logically to think that God counts the years by the rotations of the Earth around the sun. It isn't logical to apply finite time to an infinite being. Time is for us, so that we can keep track of things.



A lot of the bible was written when the thought was that the earth was the center of the universe.
True. In fact the prophets who wrote the OT sometimes didn't know or understand what they were writing. Case in point:


ISA 40:21
Do you not know? Have you not heard?
Has it not been declared to you from the beginning?
Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
ISA 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.


This was written when people thought the world was flat.




Also an arc wouldn't exactly allow Noah to survive the entire earth being frozen overAccording to the Noah Flood account, it wasn't frozen.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-31-2008, 06:45 PM
It isn't logical to apply finite time to an infinite being. Time is for us, so that we can keep track of things.
True. In fact the prophets who wrote the OT sometimes didn't know or understand what they were writing. Case in point:



This was written when people thought the world was flat.

According to the Noah Flood account, it wasn't frozen.

It was written by people who still thought the world was a circle. Circles are flat.

If time is meaningless then why does age of the earth matter?

There is evidence that the earth froze over during this time.

Dolphan7
03-31-2008, 07:12 PM
It was written by people who still thought the world was a circle. Circles are flat. It is comments like this that make me ask myself if I really want to continue this discussion with you. I don't know if you are being sarcastic, or really believe your statement, or maybe you are attempting to use humor. You got me?


If time is meaningless then why does age of the earth matter? Time is meaningless to God. Time is everything to us otherwise we would go insane trying to fathom infinity. Since time is important to us, as we live in the finite world measured by time, and all the natural laws are bound by that time, and all the elements and material are bound by time, then it begs the question of how old is earth. Inquiring minds want to know, such is the fate of mankind, always searching and looking for understanding and meaning, always asking questions.

Also time and age of the earth is a hot topic becasue there are two differing camps that don't agree on the age of the earth.


There is evidence that the earth froze over during this time.Right after yes, but not entirely the whole earth was frozen. There is no evidence that the whole ocean was frozen, but that does not mean it wasn't, or that it would effect Noah in the Ark. Remember if you believe in the Noahichian Flood, then you also accept the supernatural ramifications of that flood, so God could protect the Ark from any damage like frozen water. This also would explain why wooly mammoths were snap frozen in place, standing up, and many other evidences of snap frozen organism that we see throughout the fossil record.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-31-2008, 07:35 PM
It is comments like this that make me ask myself if I really want to continue this discussion with you. I don't know if you are being sarcastic, or really believe your statement, or maybe you are attempting to use humor. You got me?

.


Really? Are you being serious? I am not being sarcastic.

Circles are flat disc which was the idea people had about the earth at the time. If he said the earth was a sphere or a three dimensional circle, then I would think you would have something. Using that statement "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth," does not mean that the person believed that the earth was a 3 dimensional sphere.

The common belief at the time was that the earth was a circle disc. Some believe it sat up top of a turtle being kept in balance by 4 elephants.

*this part is the joke*

I do not know where they got the four elephants, that part is insane

*joke ended*

Edit: My bad, I meant Sphere not globe. Circles are flat. Spheres are three dimensions. Kind of like how squares are flat and cubes are three dimensions