What did He actually say? :idunno:
toldailytopic: Soft tissue found in dinosaur bones: what is the significance?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
What did He actually say? :idunno:
(Stipe admits he has no evidence for his position)
Barbarian observes:
Great. So we toss the idea that organic material is evidence the bones are young, since we now agree, that it's not demonstrated to be true.Just did. Thanks.Stipe writes:and, after claiming dino genetic material survived for millions of years
Stipe writes:
and, after claiming dino genetic material survived for millions of years
Barbarian chuckles:And of course you get laughed at for your dishonesty. I said we don't know. At best we can say "maybe."I restored the context (in red) so people would see what I was responding to. Being stupid and dishonest must be a real problem for you. Never lie about stuff in the same thread.
As you learned, the evidence shows they are very old. I restored the context again, so people would know that I wasn't speaking about how old dinosaur fossils are, but the evidence for organic material surviving millions of years.
It's always stupid to lie about something still in the same thread.
Barbarian observes:
Great. So we toss the idea that organic material is evidence the bones are young, since we now agree, that it's not demonstrated to be true.Just did. Thanks.Stipe writes:and, after claiming dino genetic material survived for millions of years
Stipe writes:
and, after claiming dino genetic material survived for millions of years
Barbarian chuckles:And of course you get laughed at for your dishonesty. I said we don't know. At best we can say "maybe."I restored the context (in red) so people would see what I was responding to. Being stupid and dishonest must be a real problem for you. Never lie about stuff in the same thread.
As you learned, the evidence shows they are very old. I restored the context again, so people would know that I wasn't speaking about how old dinosaur fossils are, but the evidence for organic material surviving millions of years.
It's always stupid to lie about something still in the same thread.
He used "yom", which can mean all sorts of time periods, including figurative ones. And nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Earth is 6,000 years old. You just inserted that to fit your new religion.
Oh. So what is your evidence that dino genetic material can last millions of years? That it came from dinos? Nicely circularised. :thumb:
I accept His word as it is. You believed people who told you otherwise. Isn't it time you started thinking for yourself and believe His Word?
Can it also mean a standard day?
Didn't He use a number to describe the amount of the yowms? What was that number?
His word says "six days". :idunno:
I'm just pointing out that the fossils are accurately dated to millions of years. And waiting for your evidence that the material they did find couldn't be preserved for millions of years. Since you've repeatedly declined to do that, we can only conclude you made it up, like your math that proves evolution is false.
Since you've still not shown a checkable source documenting genetic material from those bones, whether or not genetic material can be preserved that long is still an open question.
genuineoriginal
New member
God was more descriptive than you are willing to admit. He defined what a day is, and it doesn't match "all sorts of time periods, including figurative ones".
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. |
No, I added up the years from the geneologies until I reached Jacob, added in the years that Abraham's decendants had to wait until entering the promised land, added the years for Israel as a nation until the Babylonian captivity, added the years for the captivity and the sevenfold extension of it until I came to the time of Christ. The result was about 4,000 years, and Christ was about 2,000 years ago, which makes the time from creation to the present day around 6,000 years.
If you don't believe me, open up your Bible and do the math. :chuckle:
When you have some evidence that it can, feel free to present it. :thumb:
Pays not to use the assumption that radio-isotope dating is accurate as sufficient reason to justify belief that genetic material can last millions of years. That just sets yourself up for a circular argument.
In the meantime your standard that skeptics need not provide evidence leaves you with no rational reason to shift the burden of proof onto us. We remain utterly justified in remaining skeptical that genetic material can last millions of years.
Pays to take your own standards seriously. :thumb:
genuineoriginal
New member
So, where in the Bible is the verse that states, "Let God be a liar, but every scientist be true?" Is it Romans 3:4? :think:
The things some guy called Augustine says take precedence for Barbie. He is the founder of his faith.
Last edited:
genuineoriginal
New member
Isn't Augustine the guy that used the Bible to prove pagan Greek philosophy was truth?
Nope. He's the guy considered one of the greatest Christian theologians by Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Christians alike.
Not so much by you modern revisionists, though.
The difficulty for you, is that you aren't God. So when you try to insert your own wishes into the Bible, it doesn't mean anything but an unwillingness on your part to be content with His word.
Barbarian observes:
And waiting for your evidence that the material they did find couldn't be preserved for millions of years. Since you've repeatedly declined to do that, we can only conclude you made it up, like your math that proves evolution is false.Since you've still not shown a checkable source documenting genetic material from those bones, whether or not genetic material can be preserved that long is still an open question.
Don't have to. You're the one claiming it can't happen. So it's up to you to support the claim. Since you can't, it fails.
Which is why I didn't. There might be another reason it could have been in those bones, but since you declined to show that there was any genetic material, that's a moot point, too.
That's how the game is played. The person making the assertion has to provide evidence. The claim is there was genetic material in the bones, and that it couldn't last for millions of years. You declined to support the claim, so it fails.
I note your concession that it's still an unresolved question. So the OP fails.
Worked out pretty well this time.
And waiting for your evidence that the material they did find couldn't be preserved for millions of years. Since you've repeatedly declined to do that, we can only conclude you made it up, like your math that proves evolution is false.Since you've still not shown a checkable source documenting genetic material from those bones, whether or not genetic material can be preserved that long is still an open question.
Don't have to. You're the one claiming it can't happen. So it's up to you to support the claim. Since you can't, it fails.
Which is why I didn't. There might be another reason it could have been in those bones, but since you declined to show that there was any genetic material, that's a moot point, too.
That's how the game is played. The person making the assertion has to provide evidence. The claim is there was genetic material in the bones, and that it couldn't last for millions of years. You declined to support the claim, so it fails.
I note your concession that it's still an unresolved question. So the OP fails.
Worked out pretty well this time.
Kinda. More accurately I think he twisted the bible to accommodate pagan philosophy.
His word defines the days of creation as being bracketed by evening and morning. We have the Earth. We have light sources. We have the word of God saying "Six days". Along with the assumption that the Earth was rotating, I think it's an open and shut case.
Or do you think the bible says something else?
Your standard is for the one making the claim to be the one providing the evidence. If you're not going to front up, our skepticism remains valid.
Pays to live up to your standards. :thumb:
Oh. So now you think there is no genetic material present.
Suggesting a topic to discuss is a failure? :AMR:The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for January 30th, 2012 10:49 AM
toldailytopic: Soft tissue found in dinosaur bones: what is the significance?
Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.
Barbarian observes:
The difficulty for you, is that you aren't God. So when you try to insert your own wishes into the Bible, it doesn't mean anything but an unwillingness on your part to be content with His word.
Which is how we know they aren't literal days, since it's logically absurd to imagine mornings and evenings without a Sun. Yes, I know, if you redefine "morning" and "evening" then you can make it work. Which is another reason we know it's not literal.
It is, but not the way you hoped.
Barbarian observes:
And waiting for your evidence that the material they did find couldn't be preserved for millions of years.
Since you've repeatedly declined to do that, we can only conclude you made it up, like your math that proves evolution is false.Since you've still not shown a checkable source documenting genetic material from those bones, whether or not genetic material can be preserved that long is still an open question.
The person making the assertion has to provide evidence. The claim is there was genetic material in the bones, and that it couldn't last for millions of years. You declined to support the claim, so it fails.
But you offered nothing more than "I don't think it could be." And you failed to show us any evidence that there was genetic material.
Worked for me this time.
Barbarian observes:
There might be another reason it could have been in those bones, but since you declined to show that there was any genetic material, that's a moot point, too.
Links didn't show any evidence for that.
Barbarian observes:
I note your concession that it's still an unresolved question. So the OP fails.
Turns out, there's still the unresolved question of whether or not it is tissue. So that's the problem, isn't it?
Just pointing out the obvious. Unless you have something new, the problem is the assumption that it is tissue.
The difficulty for you, is that you aren't God. So when you try to insert your own wishes into the Bible, it doesn't mean anything but an unwillingness on your part to be content with His word.
Which is how we know they aren't literal days, since it's logically absurd to imagine mornings and evenings without a Sun. Yes, I know, if you redefine "morning" and "evening" then you can make it work. Which is another reason we know it's not literal.
It is, but not the way you hoped.
Barbarian observes:
And waiting for your evidence that the material they did find couldn't be preserved for millions of years.
Since you've repeatedly declined to do that, we can only conclude you made it up, like your math that proves evolution is false.Since you've still not shown a checkable source documenting genetic material from those bones, whether or not genetic material can be preserved that long is still an open question.
The person making the assertion has to provide evidence. The claim is there was genetic material in the bones, and that it couldn't last for millions of years. You declined to support the claim, so it fails.
But you offered nothing more than "I don't think it could be." And you failed to show us any evidence that there was genetic material.
Worked for me this time.
Barbarian observes:
There might be another reason it could have been in those bones, but since you declined to show that there was any genetic material, that's a moot point, too.
Links didn't show any evidence for that.
Barbarian observes:
I note your concession that it's still an unresolved question. So the OP fails.
Turns out, there's still the unresolved question of whether or not it is tissue. So that's the problem, isn't it?
Just pointing out the obvious. Unless you have something new, the problem is the assumption that it is tissue.
Or you could try an honest appraisal of what we have plainly said. We do not redefine anything. We simply suggest that it is reasonable to call the lightening and darkening of the Earth's sky under the three day reign of God's first light evening and morning.
You think that only the sun can achieve this. No redefining, just an extraordinary lack of grace and humility on your part.
So, in your opinion, is it or is it not the case that there is genetic material present?
Make that Augustine and Aquinas. Aquinas give barbarian the excuse to make God a couch potato.