Opinion on this claim
closed account (367kGNh0)
A christian website said
In recent years, there have been many findings of “wondrously preserved” biological materials in supposedly ancient rock layers and fossils. One such discovery that has left evolutionists scrambling is a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur with flexible connective tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells!
According to evolutionists, these dinosaur tissues are more than 65 million years old, but laboratory studies have shown that there is no known way—and likely none possible—for biological material to last more than thousands of years.
Could it be that evolutionists are completely wrong about how recently these dinosaurs lived?
Refutation please? (i am not christian, no biased)
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/
In recent years, there have been many findings of “wondrously preserved” biological materials in supposedly ancient rock layers and fossils. One such discovery that has left evolutionists scrambling is a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur with flexible connective tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells!
According to evolutionists, these dinosaur tissues are more than 65 million years old, but laboratory studies have shown that there is no known way—and likely none possible—for biological material to last more than thousands of years.
Could it be that evolutionists are completely wrong about how recently these dinosaurs lived?
Refutation please? (i am not christian, no biased)
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/
Last edited on
closed account (z05DSL3A)
Sorry, all credibility was lost when you got to 'A christian website said'
Lets say this was true, against all better reasoning.
Would ONE piece of evidence trump over the truckload of evidence on the other side? The thing is that creationism tries to assert something without any evidence, but then turns around and looks for any loophole to try and disprove the reality. "Evolutionists say..., BUT laboratory studies show...!"
Laboratory studies also showed that the Earth is billions of years old, so what's the argument here? They ONLY accept lab studies when it suits them to find a contradiction? Other than lab studies, there is such an overwhelming evidence that stuff has happened on this Earth for WAY longer than the age of the Earth that creationists believe.
Lastly, lets disprove this. I find it incredibly hard to believe for a simple reason, we've found MANY fossils in ancient rock layers. Why is it that only ONE of those discoveries led to this? If these fossils are only a few thousand years old, why aren't we finding living tissue in all the other fossils? Reason: because they've been like that for millions of years, otherwise we'd expect to find A LOT more fossils as you've described I'd assume - make sense?
I can at least maybe understand why people would follow the bible and such, but to trust the book of genesis is like trusting a homeless man with your child - why would you ever?
EDIT: All the links in the website lead right back into the website! There's 0 external links that show where they got this information from. And finally:
livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
Would ONE piece of evidence trump over the truckload of evidence on the other side? The thing is that creationism tries to assert something without any evidence, but then turns around and looks for any loophole to try and disprove the reality. "Evolutionists say..., BUT laboratory studies show...!"
Laboratory studies also showed that the Earth is billions of years old, so what's the argument here? They ONLY accept lab studies when it suits them to find a contradiction? Other than lab studies, there is such an overwhelming evidence that stuff has happened on this Earth for WAY longer than the age of the Earth that creationists believe.
Lastly, lets disprove this. I find it incredibly hard to believe for a simple reason, we've found MANY fossils in ancient rock layers. Why is it that only ONE of those discoveries led to this? If these fossils are only a few thousand years old, why aren't we finding living tissue in all the other fossils? Reason: because they've been like that for millions of years, otherwise we'd expect to find A LOT more fossils as you've described I'd assume - make sense?
I can at least maybe understand why people would follow the bible and such, but to trust the book of genesis is like trusting a homeless man with your child - why would you ever?
EDIT: All the links in the website lead right back into the website! There's 0 external links that show where they got this information from. And finally:
livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
Last edited on
closed account (367kGNh0)
| Utterly [REDACTED]. |
thanks, @zapshe, I initially thought, people seem to mock Christianity for claiming the earth is 6000 years old, let's see what Christians have to say about this. I found this site, read a few reasons and panicked, I felt my brain declining and sought refuge in the forum, you saved me.
| make sense? |
| All the links in the website lead right back into the website |
Last edited on
closed account (367kGNh0)
thanks, @zapshe, I initially thought, people seem to mock Christianity for claiming the earth is 6000 years old, let's see what Christians have to say about this. I found this site, read a few reasons and panicked, I felt my brain declining and sought refuge in the forum, you saved me.
To be clear, those aren't the reasons creationists have for believing the Earth is young. The reason is dogma, and everything else is an attempt to legitimize their position to other people, as well as rationalize it to themselves. If those were the real reasons, they should for the most part stop believing immediately because most of the claims they cite have been debunked decades ago.
Their line of reasoning is not "we've found all this evidence, and the only way all of it is is if the bible is true, therefore the bible is true". It's "the bible is true, therefore evidence that confirms it true, and evidence that contradicts it is false" (the definition of "bible" varies somewhat, but it's usually the KJV, often with the implication that other versions are forgeries by Satan).
Their line of reasoning is not "we've found all this evidence, and the only way all of it is is if the bible is true, therefore the bible is true". It's "the bible is true, therefore evidence that confirms it true, and evidence that contradicts it is false" (the definition of "bible" varies somewhat, but it's usually the KJV, often with the implication that other versions are forgeries by Satan).
| Actually it's not very clear :/ |
People find a bunch of dinosaur fossils without intact cells, and carbon dating shows that the fossils are millions of years old. If the fossils were actually only a few thousand years old, then you'd expect many more fossils with intact cells, not just one odd case.
| To be clear, those aren't the reasons creationists have for believing the Earth is young. |
Yea, they always believe something then search for evidence afterwards rather than try to re-examine why they believe this thing in the first place.
Their website said:
| God’s infallible Word must be our ultimate authority, not the unstable foundation of human reasoning. |
Amen.
| Rascake wrote: |
|---|
| let's see what Christians have to say about this |
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/january-web-only/ten-theses-creation-evolution-evangelicals.html may be interesting? (The result of some quick googling)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups#Christianity also suggests that that interpretation isn't necessarily mainstream.
Last edited on
to really go there, you have to answer a question from genesis. Who were the other people that cain was afraid of? Where did THEY come from?
There's multiple internal inconsistencies in Genesis if you look hard enough.
Noah was told to bring two every unclean animal and fourteen of every clean one; how did he know which animals were clean and which were unclean if God didn't specify this until the time of Moses, and if it was specified, why was it not recorded earlier?
There's a story about a man who marries his sister and goes to a foreign land and tells the ruler there that his sister can be married off, and the ruler intends to or actually marries her and some calamity befalls the people of those lands as a consequence. The ruler then pays the man and his sister-wife so they'll leave. This story is told three times with different characters and lands taking the various roles; IIRC in two of them the land is Egypt. Which is more likely, that the same narrative structure happened to three different sets of people, or that there were editorial shenanigans?
By the time it gets to Samuel 1 and 2, the editorial confusion is out of control. Saul meets David twice and at the time David is either a brave warrior or just a shepherd, Saul throws a spear at David's head two or three times, Saul dies twice in different ways. It's crazy.
And it's not like these are obviously different accounts that are appropriately marked in the text. No. One sentence says one thing and then another sentence contradicts it in the same page.
Noah was told to bring two every unclean animal and fourteen of every clean one; how did he know which animals were clean and which were unclean if God didn't specify this until the time of Moses, and if it was specified, why was it not recorded earlier?
There's a story about a man who marries his sister and goes to a foreign land and tells the ruler there that his sister can be married off, and the ruler intends to or actually marries her and some calamity befalls the people of those lands as a consequence. The ruler then pays the man and his sister-wife so they'll leave. This story is told three times with different characters and lands taking the various roles; IIRC in two of them the land is Egypt. Which is more likely, that the same narrative structure happened to three different sets of people, or that there were editorial shenanigans?
By the time it gets to Samuel 1 and 2, the editorial confusion is out of control. Saul meets David twice and at the time David is either a brave warrior or just a shepherd, Saul throws a spear at David's head two or three times, Saul dies twice in different ways. It's crazy.
And it's not like these are obviously different accounts that are appropriately marked in the text. No. One sentence says one thing and then another sentence contradicts it in the same page.
Never read the book of Genesis, figured it was a waste of time. I like debating religion with people, but it always goes no where. Either they concede the logic and say "faith" (with no reasoning behind the faith), or they try to find "logic", completely denying the logic that goes the other way.
12 Second Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbdNUBX5yJ4
12 Second Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbdNUBX5yJ4
Last edited on
I've read the entire bible. It's total garbage, especially the christian part. My theory is that since it's supposed to be inspired by god he must have slipped and hit his head between the testaments. He's just not the same guy. To explain the mormon bible (basically a third testament) I'm thinking, I don't know, accident cleaning a shotgun? It's such total crap that no one who's read it could possibly respect anyone who thinks it's "true". What a bunch of narcissistic cult-addicted losers.
closed account (367kGNh0)
Pest
Speaking of it, without external assistance, did you personally notice extremely blatant self-contradictions in it?
Plus, zapshe and dutch's posts above are exactly a day and an hour and a minute apart
I am asking this to a member of this site: https://chatnow.org/ (christian area)
so far he says:
"Saul persecuted David all the time" (he wants the actual verses, maybe if you have time, see what they have to say and let us know, i really would like to see if you can make them stumbled. it gets hilarous once they start trying to instantly change the topic whereby suddenly criticizing you for doing this analysis)
EDIT: hold on, what's this "MeetJ app" button on the navigation bar? Meet Jesus? If so I think that is a sin for them, and they are, in a sense, possibly calling themselves Jesus
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbdNUBX5yJ4 |
| I've read the entire bible. It's total garbage |
Plus, zapshe and dutch's posts above are exactly a day and an hour and a minute apart
| Saul throws a spear at David's head two or three times, Saul dies twice in different ways. It's crazy. And it's not like these are obviously different accounts that are appropriately marked in the text. No. One sentence says one thing and then another sentence contradicts it in the same page. |
I am asking this to a member of this site: https://chatnow.org/ (christian area)
so far he says:
"Saul persecuted David all the time" (he wants the actual verses, maybe if you have time, see what they have to say and let us know, i really would like to see if you can make them stumbled. it gets hilarous once they start trying to instantly change the topic whereby suddenly criticizing you for doing this analysis)
EDIT: hold on, what's this "MeetJ app" button on the navigation bar? Meet Jesus? If so I think that is a sin for them, and they are, in a sense, possibly calling themselves Jesus
Last edited on
We can pull scientific inaccuracies and contradictions all day, I promise there aren't any true answers that allow for the bible to be correct. The only thing you'll get from asking is probably some backwards riddle or made up explanation that doesn't fit all the pieces in the puzzle.
As Galileo said it, "The bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." Simply, the bible doesn't line up with reality. Examples: Adam/Eve, Earth's timeline, etc..
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/
^That link has contradictions that are more like "gotcha!" Basically, anything that was said in the bible which gets contradicted later on is in there, but those aren't the main contradictions and gaps in logic I'd point to.
Faith isn't an amazing concept, you accept things will little to no evidence. Trying to have a LOGICAL discussion with someone of faith is usually futile, because there's no open mindedness, they assume they're undoubtly right. Even if the facts stare at them, they're only thought is how to show you you're wrong because they can't be wrong.
As Galileo said it, "The bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." Simply, the bible doesn't line up with reality. Examples: Adam/Eve, Earth's timeline, etc..
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/
^That link has contradictions that are more like "gotcha!" Basically, anything that was said in the bible which gets contradicted later on is in there, but those aren't the main contradictions and gaps in logic I'd point to.
Faith isn't an amazing concept, you accept things will little to no evidence. Trying to have a LOGICAL discussion with someone of faith is usually futile, because there's no open mindedness, they assume they're undoubtly right. Even if the facts stare at them, they're only thought is how to show you you're wrong because they can't be wrong.
closed account (367kGNh0)
| Faith isn't an amazing concept |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auNzwdBUikI
I doubt there will be no debate on this, please let us not tangent from the topic of, now, mathematical harmony in the book, if you do wish to debate.
But I ask, intentional, divinity or another explanation?
Last edited on
He cherry picked the singular forms of the words, and coincidences don't mean much. He also just takes random phrases and words that mean similar things, adds them together, and then says "Look at that!" You can find anything if you look hard enough. And its not like the concept of the calendar wasn't around when the Quran was written. A lot of sciencey stuff was known then. Religion claims to know it after the fact.
The more I watch, the more he gets into just simple word play and counting that shows nothing. Briefly skimmed the video, there's not much to debate. You shouldn't believe what he's saying.
The more I watch, the more he gets into just simple word play and counting that shows nothing. Briefly skimmed the video, there's not much to debate. You shouldn't believe what he's saying.
Last edited on
closed account (367kGNh0)
The man who first said the Quran was illiterate though
what about the whole 27.3 moon occurence. It don't think it was just a matter of "these two work, thefore i will pick them"
what about the whole 27.3 moon occurence. It don't think it was just a matter of "these two work, thefore i will pick them"
Last edited on
And I'm typing without fingers.
Who's to say he wasn't illiterate? Who's to say someone else wasn't telling him what to do behind the scenes?
Here's something to think about. Moses I think was the guy who moved the ocean out of the way to cross. He took people with him to a mountain. He leaves for about a year or so, comes back, they've started worshiping a statue they made. My question: if someone LITERALLY ROSE THE OCEAN SO YOU CAN PASS SAFELY AND TOLD YOU THERE'S A GOD OUT THERE, wouldn't you believe in that God? Or would you forgot about that god as soon as the guy leaves? Answer: It's all fake.
Who's to say he wasn't illiterate? Who's to say someone else wasn't telling him what to do behind the scenes?
Here's something to think about. Moses I think was the guy who moved the ocean out of the way to cross. He took people with him to a mountain. He leaves for about a year or so, comes back, they've started worshiping a statue they made. My question: if someone LITERALLY ROSE THE OCEAN SO YOU CAN PASS SAFELY AND TOLD YOU THERE'S A GOD OUT THERE, wouldn't you believe in that God? Or would you forgot about that god as soon as the guy leaves? Answer: It's all fake.
closed account (367kGNh0)
| if someone LITERALLY ROSE THE OCEAN SO YOU CAN PASS SAFELY AND TOLD YOU THERE'S A GOD OUT THERE |
2)Perhaps some of the people did not witness the ocean split, and convicned others to enjoin their idol worship