Red Blood Cells 70 Million Years Old?

July 5, 2005

[edit - characterising opponents as being uninterested in facts and reasoning is too broad a brush and imputes motives]

However, changing [the minds of those with whom I disagree] is not the only reason for posting. Other folk, the viewers who come here and read these two sides, have been given the opportunity to see a larger spectrum for themselves, and then to balance and consider, these matters. They are seeing that not all of Adventism marches lockstepped [edit], and thinks and behaves in that way. The point need not be belabored, but it has been worth saying what [bevin] and I have said here for that reason alone, if none other.

Regards,

Norm

July 5, 2005

Quote:

NormF said:

they are not interested in facts....

"but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools" [Romans 1:21,22]

July 6, 2005

[edit - an unacceptably strongly worded response to a paragraph in a post by NormF that has itself been edited out]

July 6, 2005

Erm, this thread is still in Town Hall, and I will still edit it if necessary. I've been letting it run further than I usually would because if people don't know what to expect by page 8... But please get back on topic and stop attacking characters and people. My foundational assumption is always that everyone here is sincere and interested in knowing the truth - people have different beliefs about what the truth is and what evidence is relative, but no-one is lying or faking: everyone is sincere and deserves to be taken seriously and treated with respect.

July 7, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

finding any cracks in the theory of evolution

Cracks? How about canyons? If the Big Bang theory is to be believed, everything was once a great big mass and then it blew up. Ahhhhhh, forgive me for pointing out the obvious "crack" in the theory but where did the great big mass come from? Do people that believe this understand just how goofy of a theory it is? Talk about believing every wind of doctrine.

July 7, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

If the natural world/universe is a part of God's doings, can a believer safely disavow it's true dimensions, asserting that he will only accept the Bible?

[edit]

Seveth-day Adventists are known as "people of the Book". In fact most Adventists will tell you that you can trust nothing except God's Word. We must learn to distrust ourselves and trust in God. Since God doesn't give a voice to our pets and the rocks do not speak to us, we must hear Him through His written Word, the Bible.

[edit - saying that those who disagree with you are doing the work of Satan]

Adventists rest on the seventh day of the week because God rested on the seventh day of creation. God did not rest on the seventh decade, century or millimium. The fourth Commandment, as spoken by God from the mountain, specifically states that He created the world in six days and rested on the seventh.

Shall I trust science which is ever changing and speculative or trust the word of God, which does not change? I guess it depends upon if I would rather have a shack on a Rock or a castle in the sand.

[i was reluctant to edit this, Shane, but coming two posts after a strong warning not to attack people in these ways, I felt I had no choice]

July 7, 2005

Here is a more recent source for the news about the (allegedly) 70 million year old T-Rex fossils that still have soft tissue, with pictures, citing well-known, reputable journals and scientific researchers, at MSNBC.com:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683

Here is an excerpt:

Quote:

"They are transparent, they are flexible," said Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University and Montana State University, who conducted the study.

.

She said the vessels were flexible and in some cases their contents could be squeezed out.

.

"The microstructures that look like cells are preserved in every way," added Schweitzer, whose findings were published in the journal Science.

70 million years old, my eyelash!

July 7, 2005

Upon review, I'm taking it on myself to issue a retraction. (To those who prefer their English plain-and-simple, this means Bravus has not said to me, "You gotta fix this." I'm doing this on my own.)

I erred twice with the post this reply is linked to -- one, in naming individuals in the first paragraph; and two, in overgeneralizing by painting all scientific creationists as being of a single mind. All groups are characterized by diversity, no matter what draws them together as a group, this one included. I was unfair and inaccurate. The rest of the edits are quibbles and I won't dispute them.

To those unfairly impugned and those who remember the post as it was, my apologies.

And to my friend, Bravus, thank you for holding my feet to the fire. It was appropriate.

Regards,

Norm

July 7, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Seve[n]th-day Adventists are known as "people of the Book". In fact most Adventists will tell you that you can trust nothing except God's Word. We must learn to distrust ourselves and trust in God. Since God doesn't give a voice to our pets and the rocks do not speak to us, we must hear Him through His written Word, the Bible.

Are you sure the rocks and stones do not also cry out to us? And is not "Nature" God's second Book? Should I place all my faith in a thing made of hands? Or in this case, if both books are of His making, which one should I not trust? Perhaps, is it not better not to be too dogmatic about either one?

Regards,

Norm

July 8, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Are you sure the rocks and stones do not also cry out to us?

I am sure they don't cry out to me. I haven't had a talking donkey either. I just have to stick with the written Word.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

And is not "Nature" God's second Book?

Yes and since God never contradicts Himself, His second Book will never contradict His first Book.

July 8, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Shall I trust science which is ever changing and speculative or trust the word of God, which does not change?

Two responses and a mid-point conclusion here:

1. Science is not a be-all/end-all -- it is a method, a process, a way of doing things. It would not be science if it did not change, and speculation is a critical aspect to the re-examination and revision of thought within it.

2. The Everlasting God does not change as I understand it, but that is not the question. I know that the words about Him "shineth more and more unto the perfect day." I believe that movement is not restricted to only my perception of Him. If not, what reason is there, among other things, to look for or receive new light, if and when it comes?

Therefore, when it comes to methods and words, change and stasis in these contexts are not relevant considerations to either matter. And here, they are not foundational for belief.

Regards,

Norm

July 8, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

... they don't cry out to me.

Not all cries are verbal. This is not what I was talking about.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

... since God never contradicts Himself, His second Book will never contradict His first Book.

We agree with two facts here: the inherent nature of God includes the fact that He is not contradictory to His inner self and the things He does are also consistent with His self. But does that mean that a book about Him is therefore flawless in its every detail? There are problems with the humanity of books. And the concept sola scriptura was set up in opposition to the papal see and pronouncements from there, not to every source everywhere else.

Regards,

Norm

July 8, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

does that mean that a book about Him is therefore flawless in its every detail?

We are not talking about a book written about Him when we speak of the seven-day Creation week. We are talking about His own words spoken outload from the mountain and later written by His finger on stone. There are only two parts of the Bible written by God Himself. The first is His law and the second are the words on the wall at Belshazzar's party. It is an awesome thought that the only words written by God Himself are His law and His judgement.

Let's look at what God wrote with His Own hand.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God... For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day: wherefor the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hollowed it.

If the literal creation week is not true than there is no need to keep the Sabbath. If there is no need to keep the Sabbath there is no reason to be a Seventh-day Adventist.

Some like to point out the discrempancy between the Commandments of Exodus 20 and those of Deut. 5. Yet notice the difference. In Exodus 20 it reads, "And God spake the words..." In Deut. 5 it reads, " Moses called all Israel and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears... " In Exodus we have God speaking and in Deut. we have Moses speaking.

It is no coincidense that God's Adventist church was called just before Darwin's 1859 Orgins Of The Species book was published. The message given to the Advent movement was to preach the Three Angels' Message. "Fear God and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgement has come: and worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and sea, and the fountains of waters." Notice here we find reference made to creation and judgement - two things God wrote about with His own hand!

The Sabbath is a sign between God and his people: "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth , and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed." Ex. 31:16, 17.

We are commanded to worship the Creator and not the creation. "Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! a potsherd among the potsherds of the earth! Shall the clay say to Him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Woe unto him that saith unto a father, What begettest thou? or to a woman, With what travailest thou? Thus saith Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker: Ask Me of the things that are to come; concerning My sons, and concerning the work of My hands, command ye Me. I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even My hands, have stretched out the heavens; and all their host have I commanded... For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else. I have not spoken in secret, in a place of the land of darkness; I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye Me in vain: I, Jehovah, speak righteousness, I declare things that are right. Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that carry the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save . Declare ye, and bring it forth; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath showed this from ancient time? who hath declared it of old? have not I, Jehovah? and there is no God else besides Me, a just God and a Saviour; there is none besides Me. Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else. " (Isa. 45:9-12, 18-22)

When we believe the observations of science before the Bible we are placing more faith in the creation than the Creator. Will you believe the rocks (creation) before you believe the Bible (Creator)?

July 8, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Let's look at what God wrote with His Own hand.

.

Quote:

The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God... For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day: wherefor{e} the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hollowed it.

.

If the literal creation week is not true than there is no need to keep the Sabbath. If there is no need to keep the Sabbath there is no reason to be a Seventh-day Adventist.

In the same book, God is also quoted as saying it this way:

"And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, 'Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, "Verily, my sabbaths shall ye keep, for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cutoff from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."' And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God." (Ex. 31:12-18)

Later in the same book, He is quoted as saying it in these words:

"These are the words which the Lord hath commanded, that ye should do them. 'Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doth work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.'" (Ex. 35:1-3).

Then in another book attributed to the same man, God's words are quoted like this:

"Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day." (Duet. 5:12-15)

Four different places, the same author, quoting the same commandment, the only thing ever said to have been written by the very hand of God, and that not just on paper, but carved in stone. And no where does this author quote God on this the same way twice.

Yet you would have me believe that every word of the creation story, also attributed to this author, is literally true, when this very author, who claims to have received words engraved in stone handed to him by God Himself, can't get those words straight twice in a row? In fact, if this author is to be believed, even God Himself can't seem to decide which one is the right reason for keeping the seventh-day sabbath.

You say that "creation and judgement [are the] two things God wrote about with His own hand." While that may be, it's difficult to assertain exactly what it is that He wrote about them with wording this inconsistent.

There are those who then throw the whole thing out and say none of it matters -- "Why bother with keeping the Sabbath or considering the day of Judgement? The whole Bible is a worthless document." I think that is throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'm not attacking God. My difference is with the people who wrote about Him and how they wrote. People are not infallible, only God is. This book is not infallible. That said, can it still tell us anything? Of course.

It looks to me that quite clearly God did command that the sabbath should be kept; the question, however, is why? I'm not suggesting that the creation should be worshipped; that's a paper tiger. The question is, why should the Creator be worshipped this way? In one sense, I'd say it was arbitrary: a sort of "Because I said so," says God. Considering Who it was who said that, I attach lots more weight to it than I would otherwise. If it were anyone else, I'd say, who are you to be telling me? But not here, not this time. Going beyond that, however, is unnecessary and counterproductive.

So then, neither of us is arguing over whether God is the Creator or not. What we have to this point is that God, who also happens to be the Creator, said to keep the seventh day sabbath. And we agree on that, too.

But what about the "why"?

Does it matter? Looks like the record on that part is rather garbled. That being the case, I'm not sure that part matters. No matter what the reason behind it though, the command to keep the Sabbath remains. If that is so, why draw straws, so to speak, and say I'll go by this one, ignore the others, and then come down hard on "and here's the reason why"? A reason supported only in part elsewhere. Let it go; it's not necessary to that question.

Now then, turning from the 4th commandment to the creation story, if the very words that God Himself, carved in stone, were never quoted accurately, in the one place where, if ever, they should have been nailed down tight, is it reasonable to think that a poetic narrative, the Genesis creation story, attributed to this same author, about other doings of God should be reverenced as being literally, word-by-word, a blow-by-blow description of what He did in the prehistoric past? Particularly, when the evidence left behind from that past, which by contrast is literally being held in our hands, says something different?

It's reasonable to assume there is a core meaning behind the Genesis story which is correct; in this case, I take that to be that God is the one behind all this. In other words, He is the creator of the Heaven (universe) and Earth we know about. But when and how?.... I don't think this is a very good source of those details. For me, the dispute is not over whether He is God and my Creator, but over this question of when and how He did it. And again, that being the case, should I use this story as my exclusive source for that kind of information?

I cannot deduce all the details yet of the natural story. That's a work in progress, a process which we call science. (Which, therefore, I expect to change ... regularly!) The Genesis story does not set itself up to be a scientific document, the context certainly doesn't support that assumption either; therefore, I'll not take it that way.

So then, what can I take from this? Two different things, derived by two different approaches, each properly applicable to their contexts.

Creatorship? -- I'll bank on it. Seven literal days, that way, in that order? -- not likely. And not needed to prove why I should keep the Sabbath either. And one work in progress: so far, evolution is the better explanation of when and how the creation process unfolded to where it is today.

Regards,

Norm

July 8, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

And no where does this author quote God on this the same way twice.

Actually you have Exodus 20 and Exodus 31 both saying the same thing. Two times = twice. Yet the big difference is that at the mountain God spoke directly to the people. On the other occations Moses told the people what God had told Him. So it seems that God did give Moses other reasons for keeping the Sabbath. Yet the reason He gave the Israelites when He spoke to them directly was that of Creation and thus we can conclude it is the primary reason. Furthermore, God asserts His title as Creator as His authority to demand worship. So the reason He has authority to require us to keep the Sabbath holy is because He created us.

Your arguement is that you cannot trust Moses or the Bible to be acurate. You seem to even believe that Moses didn't mean for his writings to be accurate. I am not willing to go there. While I don't believe the Bible is inspired word by word, I believe the message is inspired although written by erroring men. The creation message is clearly that God created the world in seven literal days. The only way to dispute that is to cast doubt on the Word of God. My faith doesn't allow that. I place more trust in the Word of God than in the sun to rise tomorrow.

Also note in Ex. 20 God spoke the Commandments to the Israelites and in Ex 31 He wrote them on stone. In both chapters creation is given for the reason to keep the Sabbath.

July 8, 2005

We have to recognize there must be a significant difference between a prophet saying "Thus says the Lord," and when God Himself personally writes on tables of stone with His own finger. Note it is God Himself personally, the Creator, who wrote the words which we have preserved (and translated) today as:

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (Exodus 20:11; NASB)

Why would the Creator choose to write this one document personally, with His own finger?

Sign In

Red Blood Cells 70 Million Years Old?

Recommended Posts

NormF

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Robert

Ron Lambert

Bravus

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Ron Lambert

NormF

NormF

Dr. Shane

NormF

NormF

Dr. Shane

NormF

Dr. Shane

Ron Lambert

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity