What of the dinosaurs?
- Thread starter Blain
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
This piece has a number of false claims; for instance: "DNA could not last half a million years, but paleontologists describe DNA in samples designated millions of years old."
This is not true. The latest breakthrough in recovering ancient DNA was from a horse dated at about 700,000 years of age. Currently nothing older than this has been sequenced.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-horses-dna-fills-picture-equine-evolution
Or, if you want a more in-depth article try this one:
World's Oldest Genome Sequenced From 700,000-Year-Old Horse DNA
Previous to this the oldest record holder was a human tooth dated at about 80,000 years.
So why did your trusted ICR source report false information? This article has other errors as well. The problem is you don't know enough science to pick-up on the misrepresentations and neither do most other people, such as yourself, who rely exclusively on these types of sources for their full (and misconceived) understanding of evolution, geology, astronomy, etc.
This is not true. The latest breakthrough in recovering ancient DNA was from a horse dated at about 700,000 years of age. Currently nothing older than this has been sequenced.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-horses-dna-fills-picture-equine-evolution
Or, if you want a more in-depth article try this one:
World's Oldest Genome Sequenced From 700,000-Year-Old Horse DNA
Previous to this the oldest record holder was a human tooth dated at about 80,000 years.
So why did your trusted ICR source report false information? This article has other errors as well. The problem is you don't know enough science to pick-up on the misrepresentations and neither do most other people, such as yourself, who rely exclusively on these types of sources for their full (and misconceived) understanding of evolution, geology, astronomy, etc.
The fact remains: no dinosaur DNA has ever been detected. The ICR report we were linked to, to counter this, was full of false information. So I repeat, no dinosaur DNA has ever been detected. The question then becomes, "Why not?" If dinosaurs are only 6,000 to 10,000 years old we should have DNA samples from nearly every dinosaur fossil find. This fact alone should make every creationist sit up and take notice. Guys, Tintin and the rest of you, you are being spoon-fed fabricated information! Open your eyes! Think about this! This is the proof that dinosaurs are much older than even the Neanderthals for whom we have sequenced the full DNA genome!
When I read any article, the first thing I check is the bibliography. Particularly in this case since it has no original research, is a supposedly a review of scientific results, and most importantly from a creationist source known to be unreliable.
There were some to work by Mary Schweitzer. One had nothing to do with DNA of any sort. Creationists have lied about her research for decades. See: Dino Blood and the Young Earth
One other article was, S. R. Woodward, N. J. Weyand, M. Bunnell, “DNA sequence from Cretaceous period bone fragments” Science 18 November 1994: 1229-1232.
In less than one year after the Woodward, et al publication, their entire claim was debunked by four teams of paleontologists. One team that correctly identified Woodward’s “dino DNA” as modern human had ICR’s favorite paleontologist, Mary Schweitzer, as a member.
SB Hedges and MH Schweitzer Science 26 May 1995: 1191-1192.
S Henikoff, Science 26 May 1995: 1192.
MW Allard, D Young, and Y Huyen, Science 26 May 1995: 1192.
H Zischler, M Hoss, O Handt, A von Haeseler, AC van der Kuyl, and J Goudsmit, Science 26 May 1995: 1192-1193.
The unknown sequences “like nothing we’ve seen before” according to Woodward were positively identified as, “the mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus, accession number X56291) and to human cytochrome b genes (Homo sapiens, accession number V00662) by Allard et al. Woodward thought his own cell’s DNA was from dinosaurs. Zischler et al sarcastically wondered maybe their human DNA had been contaminated with mysterious unknown dinosaur DNA. They concluded that in fact, Woodward had merely failed to use good lab procedure and had analyzed his laboratory's human contamination.
Here we are 20 years later, and Institute for Creation Research frauds, and their creationist dupes are still spewing lies about the discovery of "Dino DNA."
There were some to work by Mary Schweitzer. One had nothing to do with DNA of any sort. Creationists have lied about her research for decades. See: Dino Blood and the Young Earth
One other article was, S. R. Woodward, N. J. Weyand, M. Bunnell, “DNA sequence from Cretaceous period bone fragments” Science 18 November 1994: 1229-1232.
In less than one year after the Woodward, et al publication, their entire claim was debunked by four teams of paleontologists. One team that correctly identified Woodward’s “dino DNA” as modern human had ICR’s favorite paleontologist, Mary Schweitzer, as a member.
SB Hedges and MH Schweitzer Science 26 May 1995: 1191-1192.
S Henikoff, Science 26 May 1995: 1192.
MW Allard, D Young, and Y Huyen, Science 26 May 1995: 1192.
H Zischler, M Hoss, O Handt, A von Haeseler, AC van der Kuyl, and J Goudsmit, Science 26 May 1995: 1192-1193.
The unknown sequences “like nothing we’ve seen before” according to Woodward were positively identified as, “the mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus, accession number X56291) and to human cytochrome b genes (Homo sapiens, accession number V00662) by Allard et al. Woodward thought his own cell’s DNA was from dinosaurs. Zischler et al sarcastically wondered maybe their human DNA had been contaminated with mysterious unknown dinosaur DNA. They concluded that in fact, Woodward had merely failed to use good lab procedure and had analyzed his laboratory's human contamination.
Here we are 20 years later, and Institute for Creation Research frauds, and their creationist dupes are still spewing lies about the discovery of "Dino DNA."
There is no scientific evidence that the Earth was poofed into existence. Even if you could disprove our current theories about how the Earth was formed, it wouldn't account for the fact that there's no evidence that the Earth was created in 6 days.
There's proof contrary to the 6,000 year model. And everyone likes to talk about how dating methods aren't perfect or how dating methods are misconstrued to conclude billions of years, but that simply isn't the case and you would know this if you actually looked into the dating methods used to determine the age of the earth, how we concluded the measurements, etc.
We also have the great flood.... There is so much wrong with the Noah's Ark story that it's impossibility is on par with that of a chubby old man going down the chimney of every house all around the world within 24 hours. We have different strata that disproves the great flood. We have an understanding of how evolution works which proves the animals loaded into the ark wouldnt have been able to evolve so quickly to produce the variety we see today - nor would the ark be able to fit such a wide variety of animals to begin with. The vessel's massive size also comes into question since such a vessel would have instantly sunk. The amount of water needed to cover the entire Earth simply doesn't exist on this planet - and even if it did we would still be flooded. All of this you can conclude happened through miracles, in which case it's not science since miracles are things that happen contrary to what is physically possible (and science is the study of what is physically possible).
We also have the claim that dinosaurs and people co-existed - which this thread is about. Obviously the claim has been debunked time and time again.
We have a plethora of evidence linking humans to ancient ape.
All of the above I am willing to discuss in more detail but I won't bother wasting my time unless you're willing to do two things:
1. You have to admit that it's possible that evolution is true and that your understanding of the Bible is flawed.
2. You have to be willing to change your mind about creation and evolution in the presence of evidence.
If you're not willing to question your understanding of the Bible, or change your views about the Bible, no matter what evidence is presented, then there's no point going on since obviously you'll automatically reject all evidence by default and look for excuses just to confirm your own bias.
I'm willing to admit that creation might be true and I'm willing to accept it if there's legitimate evidence. But there isn't legitimate evidence, so I reject creationism.
There's proof contrary to the 6,000 year model. And everyone likes to talk about how dating methods aren't perfect or how dating methods are misconstrued to conclude billions of years, but that simply isn't the case and you would know this if you actually looked into the dating methods used to determine the age of the earth, how we concluded the measurements, etc.
We also have the great flood.... There is so much wrong with the Noah's Ark story that it's impossibility is on par with that of a chubby old man going down the chimney of every house all around the world within 24 hours. We have different strata that disproves the great flood. We have an understanding of how evolution works which proves the animals loaded into the ark wouldnt have been able to evolve so quickly to produce the variety we see today - nor would the ark be able to fit such a wide variety of animals to begin with. The vessel's massive size also comes into question since such a vessel would have instantly sunk. The amount of water needed to cover the entire Earth simply doesn't exist on this planet - and even if it did we would still be flooded. All of this you can conclude happened through miracles, in which case it's not science since miracles are things that happen contrary to what is physically possible (and science is the study of what is physically possible).
We also have the claim that dinosaurs and people co-existed - which this thread is about. Obviously the claim has been debunked time and time again.
We have a plethora of evidence linking humans to ancient ape.
All of the above I am willing to discuss in more detail but I won't bother wasting my time unless you're willing to do two things:
1. You have to admit that it's possible that evolution is true and that your understanding of the Bible is flawed.
2. You have to be willing to change your mind about creation and evolution in the presence of evidence.
If you're not willing to question your understanding of the Bible, or change your views about the Bible, no matter what evidence is presented, then there's no point going on since obviously you'll automatically reject all evidence by default and look for excuses just to confirm your own bias.
I'm willing to admit that creation might be true and I'm willing to accept it if there's legitimate evidence. But there isn't legitimate evidence, so I reject creationism.
Dinosaurs, bones and carbon dating aside I believe the following which many reject and I think it answers both sides of the young/old earth argument and I have two views and or possibilities which can fit.....NOTE I believe one and or both are possible, but have not completely made up my mind as of yet.
Genesis 1 and God's spirit brooding over the waters which were already here as well as darkness.....I personally believe that the Genesis account of creation is in all actuality a renovation of what was destroyed when Satan fell as lightning from heaven.....
1. God created time as we know it based upon the speed of light
2. God in Joshua stopped time for almost 24 hours while Joshua defeated the enemies of Israel
3. God caused the sun (earth) to return 10 degrees on the sun dial as a sign to Hezekiah that he would recover from his illness.
Based upon the above facts....
1. Genesis states that the evening and the morning equals one day
2. Look at all Adam did on the 6th day before Eve was made..
God could have slowed time and the revolution of the earth down to such an extent that one evening and one morning could be as long as God wanted it to be...from 24 hours to any number of years.....
If Satan's fall wrecked the material creation and God renovated in Genesis and used the above method the earth could appear very old and be relatively young at the same time.....Kind of like a 100 year old farm house that has been renovated.....OLD on the inside of the walls while appearing new on the outside....
Just a few thoughts and I have not fully embraced anything as of yet other than the fact that I do believe that God created all things!
Last edited:
As proven by science? No.
Based on science? No.
Based on science? No.
In fact, if the earth suddenly stopped spinning, all life would instantly be destroyed.
Based on science? No.
Assumptions.
Suppose Genesis is wrong, would it be impossible for man to determine what a day is?
As based on science? No.
What it sounds like you're arguing is that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years, but God had the Earth stopped or slowed. This doesn't change the actual age of the Earth.
Regardless, is this based on science? No.
Creation science? Where's the science?
Based on science? No.
Based on science? No.
In fact, if the earth suddenly stopped spinning, all life would instantly be destroyed.
Based on science? No.
Assumptions.
Suppose Genesis is wrong, would it be impossible for man to determine what a day is?
As based on science? No.
What it sounds like you're arguing is that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years, but God had the Earth stopped or slowed. This doesn't change the actual age of the Earth.
Regardless, is this based on science? No.
Creation science? Where's the science?
"What about Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) and Ken Ham (builder of Noah's ark) then?
So then it is you who decides who gets saved and who doesn't?"
What about them? ...... you tell me
And what do you know about the Lord's salvation at all?
It is the Lord who judges .... not I
You are playing with words in a game that you are not garnered to engage ..... Yes?
The agnostic is not player .... impossible
So then it is you who decides who gets saved and who doesn't?"
What about them? ...... you tell me
And what do you know about the Lord's salvation at all?
It is the Lord who judges .... not I
You are playing with words in a game that you are not garnered to engage ..... Yes?
The agnostic is not player .... impossible
Originally I was asked what specifically I disagreed with when it comes to creation science. You responded with an your explanation for a young earth and I noted that everything you mentioned is not based on science. If creation science isn't based on science, then it's not actually science. Hence, why it would be improper to call it creation science.
Science is falsifiable. Many creationist claims are not falsifiable. But I never brought falsifiability up in my response to you so your response is fairly irrelevant.
My original post that you quoted had to do with creation "science". You responded, and I pointed out how all the claims you made weren't supported by science, highlighting how creation science isn't actually science. Of course, I originally responded to Bowman so he still has a chance to try and prove me wrong.
In an earlier post I said the following: "We accept evolution because it's where the evidence leads us. If there's legitimate evidence disproving evolution, then we have nothing to lose by changing our minds."
If I'm proven evolution is wrong, I'll change my mind and resort back to the default position of "I don't know". And if creation is proven to be correct, then I'll accept the creation explanation.
Science is falsifiable. Many creationist claims are not falsifiable. But I never brought falsifiability up in my response to you so your response is fairly irrelevant.
My original post that you quoted had to do with creation "science". You responded, and I pointed out how all the claims you made weren't supported by science, highlighting how creation science isn't actually science. Of course, I originally responded to Bowman so he still has a chance to try and prove me wrong.
In an earlier post I said the following: "We accept evolution because it's where the evidence leads us. If there's legitimate evidence disproving evolution, then we have nothing to lose by changing our minds."
If I'm proven evolution is wrong, I'll change my mind and resort back to the default position of "I don't know". And if creation is proven to be correct, then I'll accept the creation explanation.
Again....you assume that I'm a YEC...I'm not.
Its a relatively easy task to debunk a YEC....which, apparently, you spend all of your time doing, and is no challenge whatsoever.
Move up to an OEC, and your task is now much more formidable.
The flood was local - NOT global - and there was no need to fit global life onboard....so there goes that pathetic polemic.
Its a relatively easy task to debunk a YEC....which, apparently, you spend all of your time doing, and is no challenge whatsoever.
Move up to an OEC, and your task is now much more formidable.
The flood was local - NOT global - and there was no need to fit global life onboard....so there goes that pathetic polemic.