Biggest find in the history of paleontology

A time defying fossil. I am truly impressed.

 

Here's another pic.

DINOSAUR TISSUE

Interestingly the same researcher made a similar claim in 1997.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/94/12/6291

Rob

[ March 25, 2005, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Deacon ]

 

The YEC crowd has been all over the billions of years old earth time for quite a long time, as the name implies.
The tissue itself is a great find.

 

This will end up being like the other find in that YEers will attempt to co-opt the find, ignoring the reams of scientific details that contradict them. In the previous case, finding a few heme compound segments in the bone was transformed into a find of fresh dinosaur blood by the time they were through with it.

A quote on the find.

http://www.al.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/1111760155283860.xml?birminghamnews?wire

Notice the little detail there. When the fossilized material had the minerals dissolved out, they were left with some well preserved material. This is just a really well preserved fossil.

 

Watch the rampant distortion and uninformed conclusions of the YEC crowd unfold in near real time.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=119809

 

The website posted two posts above this is a site promoting atheism and has vulgarity.

Beware!

Rob

 

Yes it does. Sorry, I should have informed you first but I'm pages into the thread so I forgot about that.

My purpose is to show the damage done by the YEC crowd to the scientific community. There is a whole section of society out there who may never take the truth of God's word seriously because of a few venomous misdirected zealots.

Just what is the argument for the cross people? Wake up!

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp

This is actually by the same people who you evolution lovers have claimed "recanted" the previous find of red blood cells.

It was true then, and it's true now, ladies and gentlemen.

 

Why do the evolutionists on here automatically balk from the idea that this tissue can be used?

Travelsong, I see in your profile that you are listed as a Christian and a Baptist, yet you link to a site that is markedly anti-Christ in order to show your support of their beliefs. How accustomed to this type of language and statements against Christ that you could possibly "forget" and post it anyhow?

 

I don't judge the lost because I have the same infirmities.

I understand that the only argument for Christ is a moral one. It requires a conviction of the Holy Spirit, not stumbling blocks about the age of the earth and the mechanism by which we observe the natural world.

 

I'd like to know just how many souls Travelsong has won to Christ visting an atheistic message board. I truly hope he isn't bashing his fellow brothers in Christ along with the atheists.

 

I don't bash anyone who speaks the truth in love.

Those however who try to force unecessary doctrine on unbelievers will recieve my scrutiny.

The yoke is easy and the burden is light my friend. Christ does not require one to disregard an entire life of disciplined, rational, scientific inquiry to follow Him.

 

So you’ve shared the Gospel with you atheistic buddies on IIDB?

And when your atheistic buddies at IIDB post that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a myth and that science has never proven a person that has been dead for 3 days could ever be raised from the dead. Do they receive your scrutiny?

 

According to Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is necessary for ones salvation.

If I didn’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ I wouldn’t be going to Church every Sunday morning.

Science on the other hand has never proven that a person dead for 3 days can be brought back to life, so here my friend you have to “disregard an entire life of disciplined, rational, scientific inquiry to follow Him.”

 

And when your atheistic buddies at IIDB post that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a myth and that science has never proven a person that has been dead for 3 days could ever be raised from the dead. Do they receive your scrutiny? </font>[/QUOTE]They receive my compassion, because their eyes are blinded as mine once were. Their attacks against the cross are not attacks against my faith.

I understand that the universe as it is naturally percieved is not enough to lead someone to the cross. It is enough to make us accountable, but not enough to save us.

 

And when your atheistic buddies at IIDB post that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a myth and that science has never proven a person that has been dead for 3 days could ever be raised from the dead. Do they receive your scrutiny? </font>[/QUOTE]They receive my compassion, because their eyes are blinded as mine once were. Their attacks against the cross are not attacks against my faith.

I understand that the universe as it is naturally percieved is not enough to lead someone to the cross. It is enough to make us accountable, but not enough to save us. </font>[/QUOTE]What do you mean when they attack the cross that that isn’t an attack against your faith? The very essence of the doctrine of Christianity IS the resurrection of Jesus Christ! So when they attack the cross they are very much attacking your faith.

Try starting a thread at IIDB about Christ’s resurrection from a Christian viewpoint and post a link to it and let’s see just how you are treated and ridiculed for you faith in “fairy tales.”

You can believe the atheistic worldview of our origins all you want, but my faith is in the word God and His account in Genesis and that faith is no different when it comes to Him raising His Son from the dead after 3 days.

At some point you are going to have to divorce yourself from science and embrace faith, as with Christ’s resurrection in order to be saved.

So your quote Christ does not require one to disregard an entire life of disciplined, rational, scientific inquiry to follow Him. is a dangerous and misleading lie.

 

No it is not. My faith is not in the words of other men, but in the Word of God. I know that when I rely on my own authority I am not relying on God.

Yes and? Do I write them off? Do I assume that Christ has nothing to offer them, and none of them have a shred of willingness to be reached?

I say to you what Jesus said when accused of the very same thing you now accuse me. "Wisdom is justified of all her children".

Pat yourself on the back, you are a real Christian. Actually, come down off that horse. If a scientist truly needs to be convicted about the age of the earth to be saved, the Holy Spirit will take care of that, not you. So stop presenting it as a stumbling block to those who need to know the nature of sin and the need for sacrifice.

Absolutely. The only reasonable argument one can make for Christ is a moral one. The natural sciences cannot predict or categorize morality.

The burden of proof is on you to show that belief in a young earth or opposing evolution are integral to salvation.

 

No it is not. My faith is not in the words of other men, but in the Word of God. I know that when I rely on my own authority I am not relying on God.

Yes and? Do I write them off? Do I assume that Christ has nothing to offer them, and none of them have a shred of willingness to be reached?

I say to you what Jesus said when accused of the very same thing you now accuse me. "Wisdom is justified of all her children".

Pat yourself on the back, you are a real Christian. Actually, come down off that horse. If a scientist truly needs to be convicted about the age of the earth to be saved, the Holy Spirit will take care of that, not you. So stop presenting it as a stumbling block to those who need to know the nature of sin and the need for sacrifice.

Absolutely. The only reasonable argument one can make for Christ is a moral one. The natural sciences cannot predict or categorize morality.

The burden of proof is on you to show that belief in a young earth or opposing evolution are integral to salvation. </font>[/QUOTE]Just the response I was expecting. It’s amazing how a professing Christian who believes in evolution based on the assumptions of science will not regard Genesis in a straightforward way as history the same way Jesus and Paul did some 2,000 years ago when they quoted from Genesis.

See here in lies the problem with your theology. If you insist that I am to accept billions of years for the age of the earth and man evolving from some ape by means of “science” and interpret Genesis accordingly, then to be consistent I would have to reject the bodily Resurrection of Christ and the Virgin Birth, because lets face it, “science” regards these events as an impossibility.

So dispite of "science", I believe the bodily Resurrection and Virgin Birth of Christ because of what scripture says about these events, just as Genesis clearly states how God created this earth and all the host of it. I don't pick and choose what to believe in and what to write off as allegory based on "science."