Dinosaurs

gcthomas

New member
IF DNA has a half life of 521 years under ideal conditions.... how much DNA was sequenced?

That statement is not true.

The paper giving the 521 year figure says it was for common, not ideal, conditions. Specifically it is the presence of ground water that is responsible for most bond degradation, and that is the condition of the remains in the study. In dry, cold conditions DNA can survive much longer.

The paper is here:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1748/4724
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
What a load of complete drivel. Do you religious zealots know nothing about human anatomy and physiology? You obviously choose to lie about evolution by natural selection. Does your god require you to carry on like this??

Stuart

Wow! What a complete put-down! You certainly put me in my place.

Unbelievers need look no further than themselves for proof that original sin has damaged every facet of their lives. Unbelief is one of the symptoms.
 
Last edited:

kdull

BANNED
Banned
So it seems that oxygen toxicity in regards to the coexistence of modern life and prehistoric terrestrial invertebrates is the piece of evidence that no YECs can find a way to weasel around dishonestly.

Can we put this nonsensical issue of a 6000 year old Earth to bed now?
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
So it seems that oxygen toxicity in regards to the coexistence of modern life and prehistoric terrestrial invertebrates is the piece of evidence that no YECs can find a way to weasel around dishonestly.

Can we put this nonsensical issue of a 6000 year old Earth to bed now?

:nono:
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So it seems that oxygen toxicity in regards to the coexistence of modern life and prehistoric terrestrial invertebrates is the piece of evidence that no YECs can find a way to weasel around dishonestly.

Can we put this nonsensical issue of a 6000 year old Earth to bed now?
For a simpleton like yourself, it's enough.

But to find out if you are jumping the gun perhaps, list some evidence, even weak evidence, for the YEC position.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Your belief system borders on heresy suggesting that Christ did not need to defeat physical death...only spiritual death. Your belief system leads to the type of heresy preached by some of the writers for heretical 'Biologos'.



No, poorly apprehended. I was stating that they did not bodily die that day. He did defeat death bodily in his resurrection. And we are "in him" by faith, so that will become ours.

Get off your pedestal.
 

6days

New member
Interplanner said:
I was stating that they did not bodily die that day. *

Hmmmmm

What you said was..."Even in the Genesis text, it was not about physical death...."

If the curse did not bring physical death into our world. ..if it was part of what God called "very good" ...then Christ suffering physical death becomes pointless and the gospel destroyed.*
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Hmmmmm

What you said was..."Even in the Genesis text, it was not about physical death...."

If the curse did not bring physical death into our world. ..if it was part of what God called "very good" ...then Christ suffering physical death becomes pointless and the gospel destroyed.*
It was not about physical death in Genesis.

Matthew 10:28New International Version (NIV)

28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

This goes back to something I was driving at several days ago. God is not a corporeal being such as you and I, He is an ethereal being. When we were created in His image were were given a soul that is the image of God. Our soul lives on, our bodies are inconsequential. So much so that God has promised to replace them.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Hmmmmm

What you said was..."Even in the Genesis text, it was not about physical death...."

If the curse did not bring physical death into our world. ..if it was part of what God called "very good" ...then Christ suffering physical death becomes pointless and the gospel destroyed.*



I have no idea why you keep saying this. I don't think you know what justification by Christ unto eternal life is.
 

6days

New member
CabinetMaker said:
It was not about physical death in Genesis
Romans 5:12-19

1Cor. 15:21,22

1 Cor. 15 is about the bodily resurrection of Christ who was physically dead.*

The physical death of first Adam is contrasted with the physical resurrection of the last Adam. The curse in Genesis is most definitely about both physical and spiritual death.
 
Last edited:

zookeeper

BANNED
Banned
6days;4453444Quote=CabinetMaker said:
It was not about physical death in Genesis
Romans 5:12-19

1Cor. 15:21,22

1 Cor. 15 is about the bodily resurrection of Christ who was physically dead.*

The physical death of first Adam is contrasted with the physical resurrection of the last Adam. The curse in Genesis is most definitely about both physical and spiritual death.[/QUOTE]
What is your explanation for an acacia tree being eaten by a giraffe that then emits chemical signals that elicit an unpleasant taste (for giraffes) among other acacia trees that will receive these signals in the area of the tree being harvested? Even more importantly, the acacia has been known to communicate amongst its own kind to poison kudus to death (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12717361-200-antelope-activate-the-acacias-alarm-system/). In fact, a movie (a bad one) called The Happening was based on exactly this premise applied to mankind.

Do you see this as being designed to help plants survive? Because in your scenario of creation, plants are only in existence as food for animals. They have no need to look out for their own survival, right?
 

6days

New member
I have no idea why you keep saying this. I don't think you know what justification by Christ unto eternal life is.

What I said was that Christ physically died and was resurrected to defeat the curse of physical death.

After Adam sinned, God pronounced a curse upon His creation. Part of that curse was death to humans and vertebrates (nepesh chayyah 'living creatures')

But Hugh Ross and other theistic evolutionists seem to think that physical death already existed before sin.
The following comment from another thread, a TOL member reasons..."The "death" God spoke of was not a physical death. He tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, but Adam does so, and lives on physically for many years after. If God is always truthful, the death that the Fall brought to us, was not physical.
However..... If you believe physical death was part of God's "very good" creation (Gen.1:31), then I would argue the Gospel is compromised, if not destroyed. Or...is there merit in the above comment from a TOL member?

I will start with reasons why physical death was part of the curse... and why the comment from a TOLer is unbiblical.
1. Genesis 2:17 in the KJV reads "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

Well... Adam did eat of the tree, and he did not physical die that day. So is the verse only referring to spiritual death / separation from God? No... The Hebrew actually suggests a dying process. A more literal translation would be "dying you shall die" or less literally "for as soon as you eat of it, you shall be doomed to die". http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html

A few examples from other translations...
Young's Literal Translation
and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

New International Version
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."
New Living Translation
except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die."

2. The Bible attributes physical death to sin...specifically referring to Adam. And here is the Gospel....

1Cor. 15: 21 "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"Also see Rom. 5:12-19


3. The Bible refers to death as evil... it is the enemy.

1 Cor. 15:26 "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

So... if physical death is evil... its hard to rationalize that with Genesis 1:31 where God calls His creation " very good". Obviously physical death did not exist until sin entered the world.

(Sad side note... The story of Charles Templeton...amazing evangelist...but he compromised on the matter death before sin, and he eventually turned away from God)


4. If physical death already existed before sin... then why did Christ need to physically die and be resurrected? If the curse in Genesis 2 was only a spiritual death to Adam, then Christ only need to rise, or defeat, spiritual death. Clearly, in 1 Cor. 15:26, physical death was part of the curse which Christ conquers.


5. To imagine that Genesis 2:17 is not referring to physical death, is refuted in Genesis 3:19 (Using KJV again) "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Physical death ...returning to dust, IS part of the curse. It is something that Christ has defeated and we can join Him in the resurrection. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Rev. 21:4
 

6days

New member
Romans 5:12-19
Do you see this as being designed to help plants survive? Because in your scenario of creation, plants are only in existence as food for animals. They have no need to look out for their own survival, right?
Plants are not part of what God referred to as living things... (nepesh life) so the conversation about death does not apply to plants.
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
So it seems that oxygen toxicity in regards to the coexistence of modern life and prehistoric terrestrial invertebrates is the piece of evidence that no YECs can find a way to weasel around dishonestly.

Can we put this nonsensical issue of a 6000 year old Earth to bed now?

Why?

A plain reading of scripture declares it to be so.
Are you willing to admit you trust men rather than God?
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
The physical death of first Adam is contrasted with the physical resurrection of the last Adam. The curse in Genesis is most definitely about both physical and spiritual death.


Absolutely. This is what the message of the entire Bible is centred around; redemption.
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
What is your explanation for an acacia tree being eaten by a giraffe that then emits chemical signals that elicit an unpleasant taste (for giraffes) among other acacia trees that will receive these signals in the area of the tree being harvested? Even more importantly, the acacia has been known to communicate amongst its own kind to poison kudus to death (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12717361-200-antelope-activate-the-acacias-alarm-system/). In fact, a movie (a bad one) called The Happening was based on exactly this premise applied to mankind.

Do you see this as being designed to help plants survive? Because in your scenario of creation, plants are only in existence as food for animals. They have no need to look out for their own survival, right?

You are well named.
 
Top