That's what I'm saying, Michael. A parable is never literal, but still can be true. It's the lesson that you draw from it that is the truth behind it. And Genesis contains such parabolic stories
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
That's what I'm saying, Michael. A parable is never literal, but still can be true. It's the lesson that you draw from it that is the truth behind it. And Genesis contains such parabolic stories
That's hard to believe. 6days has brought it up about 10 times just since I've been at TOL
Actually, the answer to the "soft tissue" (it really isn't tissue) question has already been found, as someone noted a while back.
The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex finally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay...Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex... After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.
"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."
Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.
Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years.
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
Interesting that it works in oxygen; that should not have happened at all. So, it's not surprising that iron can make protein last hundreds of times longer in an anoxic envirionment.
Notice also that the discovery is one more bit of evidence for evolution. The prediction that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is again confirmed.
The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex finally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay...Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex... After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.
"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."
Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.
Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years.
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
Interesting that it works in oxygen; that should not have happened at all. So, it's not surprising that iron can make protein last hundreds of times longer in an anoxic envirionment.
Notice also that the discovery is one more bit of evidence for evolution. The prediction that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is again confirmed.
Predicted YEC response: "Nuh uh....GOD."
everready
New member
There's another problem, you see the Ark didn't leak because the Lord shut them in, in the New Testament we call that being in Christ.
Lets go over this together.
Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
No safer place than being In Christ, and there was no safer place than being in that Ark.
everready
Nice evidence
noguru
Well-known member
Yes, we know that you want to turn a class on biodiversity into a shinning endorsement of your specific theology. That is why the courts ruled creation/ID to be a religion and not science.
Thanks, Barbarian (BTW, do you prefer to be addressed as “The Barbarian”, or is just “Barbarian” acceptable?).
Over most of the past decade this dino-soft-tissue has been one of the favorite, and hardest to give good answer to, claims thrown against deep-time by the creationist community. It will be interesting to see what counter-moves Schweitzer’s new (as of 18 months ago) article elicits from the creationist community (Enyart being a prime example of someone who relished the dino soft-tissue argument.)
I see this dino soft-tissue as a prime example of the way science plays out sometimes – the researchers huddle over their experiments and suddenly jerk their heads up with egg on their faces (speaking figuratively), since they just found something that just didn’t fit in with expectations at all. Had Schweitzer taken the advice of her creationist nay-sayers, she would have declared that all dinosaur dating to date must have been critically in error, and must be rejected en-masse. But instead, she was a scientist is the truest sense, and recognized that nature had just provided an opportunity for gaining a deeper, and unexpected, understanding of how biological molecular processes can work. A few years of hard work, and now we have new insights into some important aspects of how molecular structures can be preserved. For the young-earth crowd, another gap where they can find their YEC version of God has just been eliminated.
Just for kicks, here is the link to Schweitzer’s article in all its gory detail:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1775/20132741
(The date of publication is Nov 27, 2013, not Nov 26, 2013 as asserted in the LiveScience link you gave.)
Barbarian chuckles:
That's another problem. You see, a wooden boat that size would leak so badly that a few people could never bail it out.
The 100-meter Wyoming could only sail with several pumps working full time. As the ship flexed, the joints, even though sealed with pitch, opened and leaked huge quantities of water. The Ark would have been much bigger, and therefore even more fragile. There's no way that a few people could have bailed out such a structure.
So, yet another non-Scriptural miracle is pulled out of a hat, and "hey, presto!" the problem is solved!
Sure... It's good that you understand that this is a parable for God's care of His people who are faithful to Him. But you're trying to rework it as a real event, by making up new stuff to insert in the Bible.
Not a good idea.
That's another problem. You see, a wooden boat that size would leak so badly that a few people could never bail it out.
The 100-meter Wyoming could only sail with several pumps working full time. As the ship flexed, the joints, even though sealed with pitch, opened and leaked huge quantities of water. The Ark would have been much bigger, and therefore even more fragile. There's no way that a few people could have bailed out such a structure.
So, yet another non-Scriptural miracle is pulled out of a hat, and "hey, presto!" the problem is solved!
Sure... It's good that you understand that this is a parable for God's care of His people who are faithful to Him. But you're trying to rework it as a real event, by making up new stuff to insert in the Bible.
Not a good idea.
Well given that God was the designer and Noah had hundreds of years to get it ready, I'm pretty sure it was water proof.
Dear Barbarian,
Who says they had to bail it out? I would doubt that any water got into the Ark. And, with God's help, I'm sure the boat was leak proof and plenty of pitch was used to seal it up. God told Noah how big to make the boat. It was a fine boat that didn't leak.
Michael
Dear Barbarian,
Yes, that's what I believe. Note that it says in Rev. 20:5KJV, "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.
Yes, I believe in reincarnation, if that's what you're wondering. I think we keep being born again until we get all of it right.
Michael
Dear Kdall,
Why don't you then draw from the lesson that the Creation took 6days. Why would God lie about it being six days?
Michael
Oh Kdall, I've seen you bring it up, but I never agreed with it. That's what I meant to say. That I don't believe it.
Michael
Dear Kdall,
Our Bible says that God created the fowl on the 5th day {Gen. 1:21KJV} before He created the creatures on the 6th day {Gen. 1:25}.
Michael
Dear Barbarian,
Thanks for the lesson. I don't believe it. You don't even know that God created the fowls first.
Michael
way 2 go
Well-known member
vs
which is it blood bath or flesh ?
link
- Mary Schweitzer will be widely shown to be wrong in her published claim that biological iron is the preservative that enables soft tissue to survive for millions of years. This will be falsified for many reasons including the realization that many specimens of recovered soft tissue are not associated with heavy deposits of biological iron. Further, which of the typical decomposition factors would iron interfere with: hydrolysis, chemotropism, microbes, cylical temperatures, friction, oxidation, autolysis, radioactive decay?
Dear everready,
Good post. Thanks very much for taking the time to include it on this thread.
Praise God,
Michael
:angel: :angel: :angel:
- Status