Jump to content


Photo

T-rex Dna Find


  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#101 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 June 2005 - 09:29 PM

Please ignore posts by raelian1.

#102 shepherdmoon

shepherdmoon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Virginia

Posted 02 July 2005 - 09:32 AM

You need to paragraph this post better, I am unable to determine, if you are claiming “who said what” or if they are your own statements. thanks.

View Post

On unfossilization.Well, actually, this is not the case. It’s an incompletely fossilized femur, which is very different from an unfossilized femur[by Hurd].[TO LET YOU KNOW],this is what Wieland said by‘SOME parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.’[emphasis mine] So Hurd is saying that Wieland said fossilized and UNfossilized[remember ‘SOME parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.’some get it]

Does that help?

#103 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 03 July 2005 - 02:21 PM

(original) On unfossilization.Well, actually, this is not the case. It’s an incompletely fossilized femur, which is very different from an unfossilized femur.[TO LET YOU KNOW],this is what wieland said by‘SOME parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.’[emphasis mine] So Hurd saying Wieland said fossilized and UNfossilized[remember ‘SOME parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.’some get it]

On unfossilization.Well, actually, this is not the case. It’s an incompletely fossilized femur, which is very different from an unfossilized femur[by Hurd].[TO LET YOU KNOW],this is what Wieland said by‘SOME parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.’[emphasis mine] So Hurd is saying that Wieland said fossilized and UNfossilized[remember ‘SOME parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.’some get it]


So your debating the point (why I’m not sure) over a discrepancy of ‘incompletely’ against ‘unfossilised’ as if this changes the thrust of Wieland’s argument! is that it?
Do you think Wieland’s argument is any different for that? Or that the context has changed to the effect that one can claim ‘out of context’ and thus not bother with answering the accusations?

#104 Guest_faith_in_w_*

Guest_faith_in_w_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 July 2005 - 07:34 PM

Dinosaur bones are planted in the Earth by Satan in hopes that man would someday dig them up and cause him to lose faith in the Almighty. I simply ignore such things and by doing so I pass this test God has given me.

#105 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 06 July 2005 - 09:45 PM

Dude, dinosaurs lived with man before the flood. They were called "dragons" and are mentioned several times throughout the bible. They were not planted by satan as satan is a spirit and has no control over physical things, only that of the mind.

#106 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 July 2005 - 10:23 PM

Dinosaur bones are planted in the Earth by Satan in hopes that man would someday dig them up and cause him to lose faith in the Almighty. I simply ignore such things and by doing so I pass this test God has given me.

View Post


Really? Can you back this up with scripture? I'd like to see the verse that says that satan actually did this.

#107 Guest_faith_in_w_*

Guest_faith_in_w_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 July 2005 - 04:50 PM

Dude, dinosaurs lived with man before the flood. They were called "dragons" and are mentioned several times throughout the bible. They were not planted by satan as satan is a spirit and has no control over physical things, only that of the mind.

View Post


Sorry, the only reference in the holy bible to dragons that I know of is in Revelations which are events that have yet ot occur.


Really? Can you back this up with scripture? I'd like to see the verse that says that satan actually did this.

View Post


No but the fact that dinosaurs are not mentioned in the bible would mean that they never existed. So since we know they never existed then someone would have had to make them and plant them in the ground to be found at a later time. Satan works in many ways. It is my belief he uses these scientists to dig them up with promises of wealth from Satan. Scientists do Satans work such as meteorologists who falsely claim clouds are made up of water vapor when it is a fact that they are dust from Gods feet.

#108 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 July 2005 - 07:07 PM

the fact that dinosaurs are not mentioned in the bible would mean that they never existed. So since we know they never existed then someone would have had to make them and plant them in the ground to be found at a later time. Satan works in many ways. It is my belief he uses these scientists to dig them up with promises of wealth from Satan. 

View Post


Even If we argue this from a theological perspective I find it very hard to take seriously.

Consider the ramifications of what you propose:

God creates the earth,
Satan modifies this creation to such an extent that that an evolutionary record is superimposed within the rock. The shear quantity of fossils (don’t forget the microscopic fossils), is of such magnitude that what you are proposing is to attribute Satan a power approaching, perhaps equalling, God himself.


Scientists do Satans work such as meteorologists who falsely claim clouds are made up of water vapor when it is a fact that they are dust from Gods feet.

View Post


alarm bells ringing Ok I’ve read this a few times and “I don’t get it”, are you referring to a biblical passage?

#109 Guest_faith_in_w_*

Guest_faith_in_w_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 July 2005 - 07:17 PM

Even If we argue this from a theological perspective I find it very hard to take seriously.

Consider the ramifications of what you propose:

God creates the earth,
Satan modifies this creation to such an extent that that an evolutionary record is superimposed within the rock.  The shear quantity of fossils (don’t forget the microscopic fossils), is of such magnitude that what you are proposing is to attribute Satan a power approaching, perhaps equalling, God himself.


Satan is very powerful but not equal or superior to the power of God Almighty. How he planted them there I do not know or care to know, I just know that since it is not covered in the bible it therefore can not be true.

alarm bells ringing Ok I’ve read this a few times and “I don’t get it”, are you referring to a biblical passage?

View Post


"The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the Lord hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet" (Nahum 1:3).

#110 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 07 July 2005 - 09:07 PM

Sorry, the only reference in the holy bible to dragons that I know of is in Revelations which are events that have yet ot occur.
No but the fact that dinosaurs are not mentioned in the bible would mean that they never existed.

View Post


Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible in several places, for starters see Job 40. Note that that the word dinosaur was not even a word until the 1840s, and hence why you will not find this word in the Bible, any more than you will find the word email in the Bible. But we do find descriptions of dinosaurs, such as in Job 40:

Job 40:15-19

"Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you;
He eats grass like an ox.
See now, his strength is in his hips,
And his power is in his stomach muscles.
He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
His bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.
He is the first of the ways of God;
Only He who made him can bring near His sword.


This doesn’t sound like any extant creatures I know of. However, it sounds remarkably similar to some extinct creatures I know of - namely an Apatosaurus!

Fred

#111 Guest_faith_in_w_*

Guest_faith_in_w_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 July 2005 - 03:45 PM

Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible in several places, for starters see Job 40. Note that that the word dinosaur was not even a word until the 1840s, and hence why you will not find this word in the Bible, any more than you will find the word email in the Bible. But we do find descriptions of dinosaurs, such as in Job 40:

Job 40:15-19

"Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you;
He eats grass like an ox.
See now, his strength is in his hips,
And his power is in his stomach muscles.
He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
His bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.
He is the first of the ways of God;
Only He who made him can bring near His sword.


This doesn’t sound like any extant creatures I know of. However, it sounds remarkably similar to some extinct creatures I know of - namely an Apatosaurus!

Fred

View Post


Possibly the hippopotamus or the elephant, or several other animals that are here with us today. A question to you, how do you know what this so called animal you speak of looks like if you have never seen one?

#112 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 08 July 2005 - 10:01 PM

Possibly the hippopotamus or the elephant, or several other animals that are here with us today. A question to you, how do you know what this so called animal you speak of looks like if you have never seen one?

View Post


Posted Image

#113 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 20 December 2009 - 05:56 AM

Taking this link, and scrolling down one entry, one finds

http://www.creations...1.htm#darwin338

An international team of scientists takes issue with recent claims that ancient DNA has been found in ice, amber, salt or rock many millions of years old (see 05/23/2002 entry, for instance).  They think such cases are due to contamination and have not been independently replicated.  They gathered samples in Siberian and Antarctic permafrost under ideal conditions for preservation, and found that DNA would become unrecognizable after millions of years due to increasing numbers of interstrand crosslinks.  Their report, published in the Jan. 6 issue of Current Biology,1 puts an upper limit at 400,000 years on the durability of DNA.


I reviewed the topic to ensure I wasn't just reposting old information. It is amusing to see how this discussion has played out. First it was "impossible" that the tissue could be legit, because DNA / soft tissue couldn't last that long. Then, when the legitimacy issue failed, it oh so mysteriously became "just an assumption" that DNA / soft tissue couldn't last that long.

Those who care may note that the degradation is not restricted to external causes. Shielding of any kind is not sufficient to prevent it.

Temperature also plays a critical role.

From the original source

We present the first study of DNA durability and degradation of a broad variety of bacteria preserved under optimal frozen conditions, using rigorous ancient DNA methods [8.], [9.] and [10.]. The results demonstrate that non-spore-forming gram-positive (GP) Actinobacteria are by far the most durable, out-surviving endospore-formers such as Bacillaceae and Clostridiaceae. The observed DNA degradation rates are close to theoretical calculations [9], indicating a limit of ca. 400 thousand years (kyr) beyond which PCR amplifications are prevented by the formation of DNA interstrand crosslinks (ICLs).

...

The observed rates of DNA degradation match theory [9], and indicate a limit for PCR amplifiable DNA between 400 kyr and 1.5 Ma, beyond which DNA is either severely crosslinked or non-detectable. Thus, our results represent the oldest reproducible and authenticated bacterial DNA to date. As cold conditions are critical for long-term DNA survival [8.], [12.] and [17.] the results strongly contradict claims of multi-Ma DNA sequences, or even putative viable cells of endospores and Proteobacteria, from non-frozen materials such as amber and halite [4.], [5.], [6.] and [7.]. None of these studies were confirmed by independent replication and/or measurements of DNA damage, and should be considered sceptically. ...

Now I wonder which part of "DNA can't survive millions of years" will be misunderstood next.

#114 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 20 December 2009 - 02:16 PM

How about 18 million year old salamander tissue?

http://www.icr.org/article/5117/

#115 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 11 February 2010 - 03:24 AM

They have not been shown to be accurate.  They are assumed to be accurate.


If that's the case then why do radiometric dating confirms something of known age?
It's not assumed to be accurate, it's proven to be accurate.

#116 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 February 2010 - 03:37 AM

If that's the case then why do radiometric dating confirms something of known age? 
It's not assumed to be accurate, it's proven to be accurate.

View Post


Easy. Bible timeline is around 6,000 years. God created both living and dead matter already aged.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

God created Adam and Eve already aged as adults (living matter). Why not create dead matter the same way? It would explain why all matter, coming from one source, dates differently instead of the same. And shows design even in the age of things.

Example: The sun is at the right age that it is stable enough to support life on this planet. Our planet is old enough to be cooled down and have a strong enough magnetic feild to deflect solar wind that would normally strip away our atmosphere.

#117 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 11 February 2010 - 03:38 AM

Hey guys, we do find living dinosaurs today. We call them birds.

#118 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 February 2010 - 03:45 AM

What about living fossils?

#119 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 11 February 2010 - 03:49 AM

Easy. Bible timeline is around 6,000 years. God created both living and dead matter already aged.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

God created Adam and Eve already aged as adults (living matter). Why not create dead matter the same way? It would explain why all matter, coming from one source, dates differently instead of the same. And shows design even in the age of things.

Example: The sun is at the right age that it is stable enough to support life on this planet. Our planet is old enough to be cooled down and have a strong enough magnetic feild to deflect solar wind that would normally strip away our atmosphere.

View Post

So god made dead matter that was already aged for millions of years? Why would dead matter need to be created with an age?

#120 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 February 2010 - 04:00 AM

So god made dead matter that was already aged for millions of years?  Why would dead matter need to be created with an age?

View Post


Because creation itself was done in a different dimension (before sin). But the creation had to work in both dimensions obeying the laws of both.

Man did not sin and change the laws of time by adding death until the end of the 6th day. Which means all of creation was done in a time-line known as eternity. But, creation in eternity means that anything can be created any age because it's age-less, or it would not be eternal.

So being able to do this, and knwoing how the laws would change when man sinned. How would a being create knwoing this so that the change of these laws would not destroy what was created?

Example: Let's say that the earth was created new. When man sins and the laws change. What would a new earth be? Molten ball. And what would happen to all created life on the planet? They would die. So God created the earth to be over 4 billions years old, so that when man sinned, all of creation would not be destroyed when the laws changed (death was added).

Here is a link that will help you better understand. It's a page I did that goes into great detail on the subject.

http://creationwiki...._about_eternity




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users