Bravus -

I gave reports from several years and show that the source being quoted is in fact Dr Schweitzer - not simply "NationalGeographic". If your argument is the more by-faith-alone argument that any qoute of Dr Schweitzer must be in error if it is printed by NationalGeographic -- then please provide some kind of reasoning.

In the case of the soft tissue and then the protein testing - the first was not only reported but later the video interview and testing was made available for the Discovery channel so we all had the opportunity to see the soft tissue as well as see the first hand interview with Schweitzer. (of course there could be something wrong with the video tape as well -- is that your contention??).

There as been no refuting of the protein testing and as Schweitzer pointed out in her response to the wild goo-and-slime counter-proposal the facts are totally inconsistent with any biofilm ever discovered.

in Christ,

Bob

There in lies the problem, SDA's should stop trying to prove the unprovable......it is a faith matter. Maybe these discussions come about because of a lack of faith?

The creationist arguement is from the fact that the Bible is true and can be trusted -- it is not simply a cobbling of Aesop's fable fiction that happens to have good morals.

The SCIENCE argument is two fold -- we have the ID science argument which simply shows evidence of design and we have young earth geochronometers.

But the science argument is not the same as the YEC doctrine - all agree. Darwinism and YEC stand out as two distinctively religious positions.

Only the ID SCIENCE stands alone as pure science.

in Christ,

Bob

Here's that whole chapter: http://www.whiteestate.org/books/ed/ed14.html

May as well post more for a reference:



-----



You are suggesting this is not soft tissue, but like reconstituted fossil tissue?



And off topic, fossils are petrified bones, or as you say, minerals in the shape of bones. Are you aware of the many discoveries of boots and dogs and other things that couldn't be over a hundred years old have been found just as petrified as those dinosaur bones? And the minerals would have dated the same age, if minerals could actually be dated.

Dog:

Boots with foot bones:

Partly chopped piece of wood:

Hat:

The same petrification process that turns these bones into fossils, only takes a few years, if they are in mud, like they would have been after the flood.

Things have been petrified in a matter of months, in the right conditions.

Here's a tourist site in England. They have a cave where water trickles down over the mouth. They hang items there to have them petrified by the high mineral water, in a matter of months.

http://www.mothershiptonscave.com/intro.php





I suppose they charge by the month...

This is kinda freaky:




Oh. Here I found an example of a petrified tree sticking up through many layers of rock strata, which some have concluded where formed from gradual deposits over millions of years, and not from sediment settling from a great flood.

Well, I am one who has voted that “Earth and the rest of the universe were created miraculously by God in the far past, but life on earth was created 6-10,000 years ago”, because I believe that it is the only answer that that is logical. I believe that this answer brings together, as much as possible, the Biblical account, and what true scientists have found. Let me explain:-

We know that the Godhead have been around forever—God has no beginning and no ending – He is the God “Who is, and Who was, and Who is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8), and so, as I have thought more and more on this issue, I have no trouble in believing in the “Big Bang” theory of the beginning of the universe – and that could be millions, trillions, zillions of years ago – way back in the endless ages of eternity – and there is no ending of our universe either!

Another reason for believing this, comes from the writings of Ellen White, where she tells of being taken in vision to some of the other worlds where sin does not exist – worlds that had been around a long time before the creation of Adam and Eve, worlds that had not yielded to Satan’s temptations.

So, the scientists who date the earth millions, billions, and trillions of years old could well have been conservative!! Who knows?

Another reason for thinking that the universe creation was a “Big Bang” is because of the way the planets, stars, etc, all remain in their places, because of the pull of gravity.
To add in another planet here, and another planet there would mean rearranging the gravitational arrangements. Why not do it all at once, and allow the planets to just sit there and await their turn to be made into places of beauty!

So, there is no reason to try and stretch the Biblical 6-day creation week into thousands of years just to account for the old rocks – they have been accounted for. We can take the Bible for what it is – the unfailing Word of God! AND a 6 X 24 hour creation week!

God bless,

Beryl

Things are not as well mapped out as you have supposed.

1. The Big bang supposition has nothing to do with mapping everything down to the "T". It has to do with something called inflation.

2. As for gravity not at all accounting for what we see - there are two fudge-factor concepts that are introduced so that what we see plus fudge-factors plus what we know gravity can do - equals the result. But is the fudge-factor accounting for 1%? 5%? 50%? 80%? well let's look.

Turns out that when we look into space we need the mass-energy equation to be comprised of something like this -

75% Dark Energy (as in I-dont-know-what energy)
20% Dark Energy (as in I dont-know-what matter)
5% visible matter.

So we are at about 95% FUDGE FACTOR in "accounting for everything" we see in the cosmos.

How surprising is that???!!

in Christ,

Bob

That's OK, Bob. I am not a scientist -- but I certainly believe that when God said that He created the world in 6 days, He meant it!! It upsets me when the plain words of Scripture are twisted in order to prove a man-made theory. I have always thought that when Genesis 1:1 said "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" He was referring to a previous time when the basic earth was created. To me, that is the reading of Verses 1 and 2 -- setting the scene for what was going to happen during that amazing week.

The day will come when we will be able to watch creation all over again -- then those questions will all be answered!

God bless,

Beryl

>>The Evolutionists seem very wise and very confident in their "discoveries". I used to believe those paintings represented scientific fact. I realize now, they are just paintings created by people.

So, do you see the irony in this? Just because people can draw pictures and diagrams in a certain order, doesn't mean those pictures represent truth. You can illustrate anything. You can make a time-line for the events in the Book of Mormons, but that illustration doesn't make anything true.<<

What is your opinion of the so-called geologic column? I’ve seen them in photos and have often wondered at the stratification of the simple to the complex – I mean, if they were all created within a consecutive six day timeframe, that is, within a 144-hour timeframe – should there be so definite a stratification in the geologic column?

I agree, there is much that is predicated on faith in evolutionary thought; however, that is true also with the Biblical Creationist – only moreso, in spades. Aside from the cynically characterized Frankenchild ID, the creationist relies entirely upon a few texts orally transmitted, by account, through nigh a millennium.

>>We must remember the great tendency mankind has toward idolatry.<<

Let us not forget also – the tendency towards iconolatry...

>>That's trusting an image for truth. We must beware this tendency.<<

In much of illustrations and imagery there is the representation of that which is real and that which reflect truths – note: the utilization of the Seraphim and pomegranates in the wilderness Tabernacle. I suppose one might apprehend the significance of the Seraphim – but what does one make of the pomegranates?

>>And look at Isaiah pointing out the irony of idolatry:

[...] And the residue thereof he maketh a god, [even] his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth [it], and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou [art] my god.<<

Isaiah had a way with imagery, did he not? However, one man’s idol is another man’s icon.

>>That's ironic and we can see humor in it. But who would call Isaiah a scoffer? I wouldn't.

So what's the difference?<<

Far be it for me to either call Isaiah a scoffer or to indict him for speaking pejoratively.

>>To them, the fact that He was being crucified, and couldn't save Himself from that, proved that they where right and He was wrong. They where perfectly confident in their observation.

There's a great evil discerned here.<<

I think that Jesus Christ described the situation with His words, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”

>>2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of...<<

I see enough willful ignorance to spread around – generously.

>>Peter says this ignorance is willful ignorance. In other words there's no excuse. The reason they choose to believe this is because of their own lusts. They see is as a greater freedom of we are free to just do whatever our lusts tell us to do.<<

What of lusts leading to ‘willfully cast aspersions’ re the ‘Body’ of Jesus Christ?

>>They see no virtue in self-denial, and self-sacrifice. And they think they are smarter than other people, as we've pointed out with the Sadducees that deny the resurrection with their witty little illustrations.<<

Actually, many ‘so-called’ evolutionists are very intelligent.

>>They need a theory that justifies their lusts, and Evolution fills that demand, perfectly.<<

We may not be on the same page re “lusts” – and you may be mischaracterizing Evolutionists. It is not for nothin’ that the Creator place ll00cc gray matter between our ears – that three-pound universe. It is my position that there are aspects of reality that do not readily lend themselves to a Creation paradigm per se.

>>I'm not reviling an individual.<<

I realize that your ‘fervor’ is more generally directed than individually.

>>I was raised an Evolutionists. The Bible was mocked in High School. That's why I never bothered reading it, because it was really just a joke. I took Bio I & II. I meditated on the law of Evolution day and night.<<

I’ve always tended to Creation – but with some caution vis-à-vis the parochially dogmatic contentions of its proselytizers.

The city Los Angeles sustains a population of approximately four million. An individual cell is said to be equivalently as complex and intricate in functions and infrastructure as a city the size of Los Angeles, CA.

That said, there is within the Japanese Science Community those who believe in panspermia; that is, the intergalactic dissemination of DNA information from which spring life. They posit deposition of that information on Earth. The delivery vehicle for said DNA information is claimed to have been viruses – inorganic viruses – silicone by nature and drawing energy cosmically. One form structured as a double-terminated, six-sided planular configuration with flagellum (as seen and photographed with an electron microscope). This represents its crystalline form. These forms, under favorable conditions

morphed into the organic viruses with which we have familiarity. (interestingly, viruses do have that dual nature, which led to the hypothesis in the first place) [/extemporaneously]

I believe one may apprehend both Intelligent Design and evolution in this ‘Japanese’ scenario. That said,

could, or would, Gd be found in that narrative?

>>One time I tried to kill myself because I had come to believe that I was not fit to live. I figured I would help the process of Evolution, by sacrificing myself, to make way for the "fittest".<<

I’m pleased you didn’t. Gd provided your function henceward...

>>It doesn't matter how much you prove them wrong. Their confidence is in their ability to mock and revile Creationists,<<

I see Creationists giving as good as they’re getting...

Am I the only one that's banned from Origins forum?

Do you guys all agree that I should be banned from that forum? That's kinda what I've been wondering. I see you having a good time there without me. I'm tempted to think that you don't care.

I just had to say that.

You're not banned, but you haven't been invited. You haven't been invited because you haven't shown a willingness to discuss the issues in a civil and non-attacking manner. I know that your own theology and world view justifies the way you attack others, and that you don't perceive it as attacking, but I would need to see evidence that you're capable of discussing in a different vein before you would receive an invitation. The ball is in your court.