Jump to content
IGNORED

Dino's (and others) Soft Tissue


Enoch2021

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

 

 

 

Question: If the tissue lasted for 5000 - 6000 yrs without decaying, what would make it decay later that it could not exist for a longer period of time?

that was going to be my next post neb.       Not that I think they are millions of years old, but I don't see how they could even be 5,000 years old and were just in the ground.  something would have had to keep bacteria away, and that really isn't easy to do even if you are trying...

 

 

Sorry guys and gals missed this.

 

"Question: If the tissue lasted for 5000 - 6000 yrs without decaying,"

 

No there wasn't any "without decaying" all are decayed to a point.

 

Time is the enemy here (among other things). Just do the math:  65,000,000 divided by 6,000 to get a sense of the orders of magnitude difference.

 

Also, bear in mind...

 

'no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years'

Sykes, B., The past comes alive, Nature 352(6334):381–382, 1991.

 

well if it would be intact for 6,000 years how do we know it would not be intact for much longer than ten thousand years?

 

I gotta tell you that these threads over the past couple of weeks makes one start to question everything on both sides of the issue.

Could it be that like our government today....  that no one really knows what they are talking about...

 

 

"well if it would be intact for 6,000 years how do we know it would not be intact for much longer than ten thousand years?"

 

'no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years'

Sykes, B., The past comes alive, Nature 352(6334):381–382, 1991.

 

and, I don't mean to be disrespectful here nor am I implying you lack this....but Common Sense needs to be reckoned with here, IMHO

 

 

"I gotta tell you that these threads over the past couple of weeks makes one start to question everything on both sides of the issue."

 

I couldn't disagree more Sir.  It's been a Blessing to Me and has strengthened my Faith....if that is even possible  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,033
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

 

"well if it would be intact for 6,000 years how do we know it would not be intact for much longer than ten thousand years?"

 

'no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years'

Sykes, B., The past comes alive, Nature 352(6334):381–382, 1991.

 

and, I don't mean to be disrespectful here nor am I implying you lack this....but Common Sense needs to be reckoned with here, IMHO

 

 

"I gotta tell you that these threads over the past couple of weeks makes one start to question everything on both sides of the issue."

 

I couldn't disagree more Sir.  It's been a Blessing to Me and has strengthened my Faith....if that is even possible  :)

 

 

Has the above quote been proven via repeatable experiments?   What repeatable experiments have been done to prove that DNA would not last much more than 10,000 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1,022
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  39,193
  • Content Per Day:  6.14
  • Reputation:   9,977
  • Days Won:  78
  • Joined:  10/01/2006
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

well if it would be intact for 6,000 years how do we know it would not be intact for much longer than ten thousand years?

 

I gotta tell you that these threads over the past couple of weeks makes one start to question everything on both sides of the issue.

Could it be that like our government today....  that no one really knows what they are talking about...

 

 

We have to remember we are just reading the thoughts and findings of other humans.......fallible humans.  Only God knows for sure; after all, He was there.  :mgcheerful: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  29
  • Topic Count:  593
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  55,867
  • Content Per Day:  7.55
  • Reputation:   27,618
  • Days Won:  271
  • Joined:  12/29/2003
  • Status:  Online

 

 

 

well if it would be intact for 6,000 years how do we know it would not be intact for much longer than ten thousand years?

 

I gotta tell you that these threads over the past couple of weeks makes one start to question everything on both sides of the issue.

Could it be that like our government today....  that no one really knows what they are talking about...

 

 

We have to remember we are just reading the thoughts and findings of other humans.......fallible humans.  Only God knows for sure; after all, He was there.  :mgcheerful: 

 

I think my problem is that I don't really agree with all of either side of question...   but there's things I have to reconcile that I wouldn't dream of adding to the discussions in this kind of environment.....   it would just really muddy up things...

 

That's the reason that I had the thought that none of us know the real whole story.

 

But I do fully agree with whoever brought it up in one of the threads in that it is detrimental to seekers to drag it out the way we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  14
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  194
  • Content Per Day:  0.05
  • Reputation:   37
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/31/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/27/1984

Well what makes you think it has to be over 6,000 years old.  The flood was 4,000 years ago (I think) and I'm sure pairs of dinosaurs made it on the Ark, hence being mentioned throughout the bible, especially in Job.  People like Alexander the Great had encounters with raptor like creatures (science considers pure myth, but what do they know?)  they have found T-Rex bones in soft sand here in the America's.  They didn't all die off in the flood.  Most of them did, but I believe they struggled to survive in the much cooler climate that persisted afterward.  Some would still say there are still dinos hidden in the rainforests in Central and South America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

 

But I do fully agree with whoever brought it up in one of the threads in that it is detrimental to seekers to drag it out the way we are.

 

Nah..   It's just the argument that is used to intimidate YEC'ers into silence.  If everyone were on here supporting the OEC or evolutionist worldviews, there wouldn't be this insistence that we are hurting seekers.  It is the YECers that are being told that their view hurts seekers.   If there were no controversy and everyone here embraced OEC we would one happy little family and there would be no worries about what seekers think.

 

It those nasty little YECers with their troublesome notion that God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted...  They are the problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,033
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

The problem is that it is only the YECers, and only a few of them like yourself that keep suggesting that only the YEC hold that God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted.  Perhaps if you would quit implying that those that do not think like you didn't think God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted we could actually discuss the topics at hand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,239
  • Content Per Day:  0.87
  • Reputation:   1,686
  • Days Won:  6
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

The problem is that it is only the YECers, and only a few of them like yourself that keep suggesting that only the YEC hold that God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted.  Perhaps if you would quit implying that those that do not think like you didn't think God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted we could actually discuss the topics at hand.

Well said. We should agree to disagree and no one should resort to "my interpretation is God inspired and yours isn't." This is bullying and arrogant, and definitely filled with gentleness and humility. The apostle paul even warned Timothy about such conversation.

Gray matter issues should be discussed in LOVE. What is love? All Christians should know how to apply such, yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

The problem is that it is only the YECers, and only a few of them like yourself that keep suggesting that only the YEC hold that God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted.  Perhaps if you would quit implying that those that do not think like you didn't think God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted we could actually discuss the topics at hand. 

 

The YEC model takes God at His word that He created the earth in six days.   The OEC view is rooted in unbelief and a philosophical rejection of God's words going back before science.  

 

Christians are mistakenly putting their faith in an assumption that has not been proven and are trying to pencil that assumption into the Word of God.  I don't have to work near as hard as others do, twisting and contorting the Word of God to accommodate silly fairytales about pre-adamite civilizations that the Bible doesn't mention, quoting physicists who don't know Hebrew while knowingly misrepresenting them Hebrew scholars, because they can't find a real Hebrew scholar that will validate these silly stories.

 

I can simply go by what the Bible says and I don't have to draw from assumptions created by fallible little men when I have the word of an all-knowing God to draw from.  OEC is rooted in the Bible and cannot be supported by the Bible.

 

So yes, I believe that the YEC model is the closest to a faithful understanding of God's word and I won't apologize for saying so.  At least the YEC model doesn't have a heritage of unbelief as its primary source. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,239
  • Content Per Day:  0.87
  • Reputation:   1,686
  • Days Won:  6
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

The problem is that it is only the YECers, and only a few of them like yourself that keep suggesting that only the YEC hold that God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted.  Perhaps if you would quit implying that those that do not think like you didn't think God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted we could actually discuss the topics at hand.

 

The YEC model takes God at His word that He created the earth in six days.   The OEC view is rooted in unbelief and a philosophical rejection of God's words going back before science.  

 

Christians are mistakenly putting their faith in an assumption that has not been proven and are trying to pencil that assumption into the Word of God.  I don't have to work near as hard as others do, twisting and contorting the Word of God to accommodate silly fairytales about pre-adamite civilizations that the Bible doesn't mention, quoting physicists who don't know Hebrew while knowingly misrepresenting them Hebrew scholars, because they can't find a real Hebrew scholar that will validate these silly stories.

 

I can simply go by what the Bible says and I don't have to draw from assumptions created by fallible little men when I have the word of an all-knowing God to draw from.  OEC is rooted in the Bible and cannot be supported by the Bible.

 

So yes, I believe that the YEC model is the closest to a faithful understanding of God's word and I won't apologize for saying so.  At least the YEC model doesn't have a heritage of unbelief as its primary source.

Not true again- you are misrepresenting the OEC model and casting us in a false light.....again.

The OEC model is based on the word of God too. We interpret Genesis 1 different than you and we do not agree with your exegesis. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...