Guest shiloh357 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 What I said is simply the facts. If you go back and study, you will find that the OE view predates science and is goes back to the philosophers of the "age of reason." Evolution needs an old earth to operate, and OEC simply latches on to the assumptions of the scientific world. But its roots historically go back to unbelievers, not Christians trying to be faithful to God word. Could you please supply some evidence to support this last statement? I agree. The statement comes across as if scientist were looking for reasons not to believe in the Bible rather than putting the pieces together and seeing what came together. Yeah, that is about the size of it. You are all over the place here. First you claim that the assumption of the old earth came before science and then you agree an old earth is the result of scientist looking for reasons not to believe in the Bible. You cant have it both ways. No, the point is that the assumption and predate science. Scientists embraced the assumption and are trying to prove the assumption. The naturalistic philosophical worldview serves as the filter through which the evidence is interpreted. So yes, it is an attempt to find reasons not to accept the biblical claims. Nothing inconsistent at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted February 10, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 10, 2014 No, the point is that the assumption and predate science. Scientists embraced the assumption and are trying to prove the assumption. The naturalistic philosophical worldview serves as the filter through which the evidence is interpreted. So yes, it is an attempt to find reasons not to accept the biblical claims. Nothing inconsistent at all. The assumption of a heliocentric universe predates what you seem to be considering science. Scientists eventually embraced the assumption and set out to prove/disprove the assumption, that is what science does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 No, the point is that the assumption and predate science. Scientists embraced the assumption and are trying to prove the assumption. The naturalistic philosophical worldview serves as the filter through which the evidence is interpreted. So yes, it is an attempt to find reasons not to accept the biblical claims. Nothing inconsistent at all. The assumption of a heliocentric universe predates what you seem to be considering science. Scientists eventually embraced the assumption and set out to prove/disprove the assumption, that is what science does. There was no such attempt at trying falisfy the OE view. It was embraced and fact. The evolutionist need an OE for evolution to be viable. And fortunately for them, they have plenty of Christians willing to help the validate the OE view that they need to continue to pull people away from biblical creationism into evolution and wrecking the faith of the next generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted February 10, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted February 10, 2014 So the biblical worldview, which had dominated the Western nations for centuries, was rapidly being replaced by a naturalistic worldview. And it was into the midst of these revolutions in worldview and the reinterpretation of the phenomena of nature and the Bible that the scriptural geologists expressed their opposition to old-earth geology in the first half of the nineteenth century. What this shows is that people were more inclined to interpret evidence based on what the evidence showed rather than interpreting it is such a way as to fit a 6000 year-old time frame. No, it doesn't. Did you read the article? The assumption of the old earth came before science. The part you quoted is talking about different worldviews, not scientific views. It is talking about a biblical worldview vs. a naturalistic worldview, not biblical vs. scientific. Yes, I did read the article, and it talks about Deism and Atheism, but not about Old Earth philosophy. The part I quoted was a means of referencing the article without re-posting the whole things (a pet peeve I have, re-posting long stuff that everyone has to scroll down past). I did not see anything in the article about old earth philosophy pre-dating science. Rather, I saw geologists who were interpreting the data with no mention of how them being out to prove anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted February 10, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted February 10, 2014 What I said is simply the facts. If you go back and study, you will find that the OE view predates science and is goes back to the philosophers of the "age of reason." Evolution needs an old earth to operate, and OEC simply latches on to the assumptions of the scientific world. But its roots historically go back to unbelievers, not Christians trying to be faithful to God word. Could you please supply some evidence to support this last statement? I agree. The statement comes across as if scientist were looking for reasons not to believe in the Bible rather than putting the pieces together and seeing what came together. Yeah, that is about the size of it. The article does not state that. I can see how someone might imply that in their reading of the article, but it does not state that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted February 10, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted February 10, 2014 daaaaaaad they're fighting again! can we ever just discuss a topic without it reverting back to OE vs. YE. Start a thread, if one doesn't exist, and keep there. It gets these discussions off track. This IS a OEC vs. YEC thread. The OP is a sub topic of that debate. Actually the OP is about Soft tissues found in Dinos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted February 10, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 This is a fossil fish taken from the Green River Formation in Wyoming and is on the Office Wall @ the Institute For Creation Research...... They noted that the paleontologists that prepared it wrote that some of it wasn't Fossil @ all.... it was actual COLLAGEN!! You can see it in the Pic. One visitor commented that it looked like "Beef Jerky". This particular one is "allegedly" 50 Million Years Old. A lizard fossil was found in the same formation; guess what they found? COLLAGEN..... “Taken together, all the analyses performed in this study strongly suggest that the fossilized reptile skin in BHI-102B [the lizard fossil] is not a simple impression, mineralized replacement or an amorphous organic carbon film, but contains a partial remnant of the living organism’s original chemistry, in this case derived from proteinaceous skin.” Edwards, N.P. et al., Infrared mapping resolves soft tissue preservation in 50 million year-old reptile skin, Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 278(1722):3209–18, 2011. In 2011, UK archaeologists and experts on bone collagen decay wrote that “it will take between 0.2 and 0.7 Ma [million years] at 10°C for levels of collagen to fall to 1% in an optimal burial environment.” Buckley, M. and Collins, M., Collagen survival and its use for species identification in Holocene-lower Pleistocene bone fragments from British archaeological and paleontological sites. Antiqua 1(e1):1–7, 20 September 2011 So, collagen could last 450,000 or so years on average. If kept below freezing, it might be imagined to last one or two million years at the very most. But evolutionists agree that dinosaurs lived in a very warm climate, so in their scenario, this would vastly shrink the times—at 20°C, collagen would have decomposed below the detection limit in about 15,000 years. Nielsen-Marsh, C., Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist 24(3):12–14, June 2002 Doyle, S., The Real Jurassic Park, Creation 30(3):12–15, 2008 http://creation.com/original-animal-protein-fossils Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 daaaaaaad they're fighting again! can we ever just discuss a topic without it reverting back to OE vs. YE. Start a thread, if one doesn't exist, and keep there. It gets these discussions off track. This IS a OEC vs. YEC thread. The OP is a sub topic of that debate. Actually the OP is about Soft tissues found in Dinos. Yes, but to make a case for the YEC model, namely if dinos went extinct 65 million years ago, why are we finding soft tissue in their bones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 What I said is simply the facts. If you go back and study, you will find that the OE view predates science and is goes back to the philosophers of the "age of reason." Evolution needs an old earth to operate, and OEC simply latches on to the assumptions of the scientific world. But its roots historically go back to unbelievers, not Christians trying to be faithful to God word. Could you please supply some evidence to support this last statement? I agree. The statement comes across as if scientist were looking for reasons not to believe in the Bible rather than putting the pieces together and seeing what came together. Yeah, that is about the size of it. The article does not state that. I can see how someone might imply that in their reading of the article, but it does not state that. Yep, and that's the point. The article may not come out and say it so many words, but that is clearly what is being suggested. That's why I posted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthonyjmcgirr Posted February 10, 2014 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 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Yeah when sediments cover dead animals, I can see how it will take a long time for them to completely rot and all that. I can see how it could take a thousand or more years. But 65 million years? There's NO way. To find anything but a bone or rock PROVES that the dinosaurs did not die over 65 million years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts