Soft tissue on dinosaur fossil

Originally posted by KellyJay
It was the first time I have ever heard about soft tissue in fossils before.
Kelly

It started in 2005 there is plenty on the web about it. The iron explanation seems credible from a controlled environment with small samples of blood tested over days, but preserving soft tissue in a fossil for 68 million years as another condition.

Originally posted by divegeester
It started in 2005 there is plenty on the web about it. The iron explanation seems credible from a controlled environment with small samples of blood tested over days, but preserving soft tissue in a fossil for 68 million years as another condition.

Not sure how you can prove iron could and would preserve soft tissue
over millions of years. What it can do in the short term, does not
automatically mean it would be able to continue to do it through that
much time. I guess if you believed in millions/billions of years you are
forced to accept it could, and if not you'll reject it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
[bI was wondering what those that
didn't agree with a young earth were going to say about, and was
amused that there was already an explaination of 'iron' to dismiss it.
Kelly[/b]

You are amused that there is an explanation. Why is that amusing? Because you assume they are being dishonest and made up the explanation.
Then a few posts later:

They may honestly believe what they think is true, that does not make them liars, just wrong.

Sorry, but I am not buying. This whole thread is an attack by you on scientists that disagree with your beliefs and you are being very careful to insinuate wrong doing but not making the accusations strong enough that you can be called on it. But they are nevertheless accusations despite your denials. Your trademark style of ultimate vagueness does not excuse what you say.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Not sure how you can prove iron could and would preserve soft tissue
over millions of years.

Its irrelevant. You were amused that there was an explanation. Whatever explanation was given, you would still be amused, and still be unconvinced by the explanation.

I guess if you believed in millions/billions of years you are forced to accept it could, and if not you'll reject it.
Only if you do your science based on your beliefs. Why should someone who believes the earth is thousands of years old automatically reject the possibility that iron is a good preservative?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I try not to use the word "lie" as freely as some here do. They may
honestly believe what they think is true, that does not make them
liars, just wrong. If they know the truth and still reject it, then I'd
call their honestly into question.
Kelly

The problem between fundamentalist Christians and science is that some Christians extend the concept that the word of god (the bible) is protected over time and flawless, to being a complete explanation of all science and for it to be absolutely literal and absolutely complete. Eg the ancestral trail from Adam to Christ. I'm not convinced that the bible should be interpreted that way.

The other side, science works on discovery and makes observations and form hypothesis to explain natural phenomena. As more discovery is made and observations and evidence is presented, new or amended hypothesis can be made. The obvious one was discovering that the earth was not flat but spherical. Another would be the discovery that matter can be produced from nothing by energy and that matter can be reduced to no mass and all energy; from this discovery it therefore is possible to "create" a universe.

Originally posted by divegeester
The problem between fundamentalist Christians and science is that some Christians extend the concept that the word of god (the bible) is protected over time and flawless, to being a complete explanation of all science and for it to be absolutely literal and absolutely complete. Eg the ancestral trail from Adam to Christ. I'm not convinced that the bible ...[text shortened]... to no mass and all energy; from this discovery it therefore is possible to "create" a universe.

Truth is going to be truth no matter how I look at it or anyone else.
I think people are flawed, God not so much, does that translate to how
I view the scripture as being flawless? I'm flawed, so I have to trust God
there too. I believe in the ancestral trail of Adam to Christ which makes
everyone one of us related. With respect to interpreting the scriptures, I
believe them over people today.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Truth is going to be truth no matter how I look at it or anyone else.
I think people are flawed, God not so much, does that translate to how
I view the scripture as being flawless? I'm flawed, so I have to trust God
there too. I believe in the ancestral trail of Adam to Christ which makes
everyone one of us related. With respect to interpreting the scriptures, I
believe them over people today.
Kelly

The ancestral trail from Adam to Christ in documented in scripture somewhere isn't it. My point above is that the whole young earth concept hangs on that piece of scripture being complete, literal, and accurately documented and translated over the millennia.

Originally posted by divegeester
The ancestral trail from Adam to Christ in documented in scripture somewhere isn't it. My point above is that the whole young earth concept hangs on that piece of scripture being complete, literal, and accurately documented and translated over the millennia.

For the Jewish people it was huge to be able to know what tribe you
were from! Much rested on it, God took great pains to ID those He was
doing a work through and the blessings that followed their lives. So yes,
I agree a lot hangs on it being complete, literal, and accurately
documented. The translation portion, is important, but until the time of
Christ I don't think the Hebrew people cared a lick about translations.
Kelly

Originally posted by divegeester
The problem between fundamentalist Christians and science is that some Christians extend the concept that the word of god (the bible) is protected over time and flawless, to being a complete explanation of all science and for it to be absolutely literal and absolutely complete. Eg the ancestral trail from Adam to Christ. I'm not convinced that the bible ...[text shortened]... to no mass and all energy; from this discovery it therefore is possible to "create" a universe.

As you stated the science first starts with an hypothesis (speculation), then the scientist attempts to prove his speculation. It is curious that scientists speculating on opposite things sometimes are each able to appear to almost prove his or her speculation.

Even though new or amended hypothesis can be made, such speculation is not easily accepted unless it remains consistent with current accepted thought. The examples you gave could have already been obtained from reading the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible also gave the answer to the source of that creative energy.

Originally posted by divegeester
The ancestral trail from Adam to Christ in documented in scripture somewhere isn't it. My point above is that the whole young earth concept hangs on that piece of scripture being complete, literal, and accurately documented and translated over the millennia.

Not really.

Originally posted by KellyJay
For the Jewish people it was huge to be able to know what tribe you
were from! Much rested on it, God took great pains to ID those He was
doing a work through and the blessings that followed their lives. So yes,
I agree a lot hangs on it being complete, literal, and accurately
documented. The translation portion, is important, but until the time of
Christ I don't think the Hebrew people cared a lick about translations.
Kelly

But if the age of the earth is SO important, why didn't god make it more explicit in the bible?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Not really.

Sounds like you have more scriptural evidence of the age of the earth, please feel free to share it?

Originally posted by divegeester
But if the age of the earth is SO important, why didn't god make it more explicit in the bible?

I don't think it matters all that much, God said what He said, we accept
it or not. I don't know one reason why having the earth 7K years old is
some how more or less important than having it several million/billion
years old. It is a meaningless data point for salvation or anything else
in my opinion. I just like sticking to what scripture says, I dislike
judging it, I believe I will be judged by it.
Kelly

Originally posted by divegeester
Sounds like you have more scriptural evidence of the age of the earth, please feel free to share it?

The Holy Bible never mentions billions or millons of years of previous history, so there is no need to speculate about these long ages when scripture clearly indicates the heavens and earth and all that is in them were orignally created in six days not billions of years.

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

(Exodus 20:11 KJV)

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible never mentions billions or millons of years of previous history, so there is no need to speculate about these long ages when scripture clearly indicates the heavens and earth and all that is in them were orignally created in six days not billions of years.

[b]For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, ...[text shortened]... nth day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

(Exodus 20:11 KJV)[/b]

The bible doesn't mention nova's either but they exist. The bible doesn't mention bacteria but they exist. So according to your logic, there is no such thing as novae or bacteria.
Get serious. Try to think things through using your own actual brain rather than just go on being duped by your programming.