1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The death knoll of Intelligent Design and Creationism

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Pah, Mar 24, 2005.

  1. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,000
    Ratings:
    +1,056
    In the thread "T-Rex Soft Tissue Found" http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11383 there is news of soft tissue being found in a T'Rex.

    If DNA is found in the soft tissue it will most likely prove the ancestorial link to our modern day birds. As it is, preliminary study indicates that the soft tissue is simular to an osterich
    Common ancestory is being proven by more that just fossilized bone structure.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,048
    Ratings:
    +861
    Damn...I hadn`t even thought of that.
     
  3. Majikthise

    Majikthise Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Wicked ,wicked stuff!! I LOVE IT!!
     
  4. Majikthise

    Majikthise Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    What about microbes?If the soft tissue sirvived,might not ancient forms of viruses or parasites?This get's cooler by the minute!
     
  5. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,683
    Ratings:
    +3,065
    I'm afraid you're wasting your time, pah. For those who are open-minded, the fossil record is enough...for the rest, similarities between T-Rex bone marrow and ostrich bone marrow are merely evidence of a common Designer. I highly doubt this will be the death knoll of Creationism or ID.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Jaiket

    Jaiket Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    8,708
    Ratings:
    +2,283
    Religion:
    Something else
    Intelligent Design and Creationism will persist as long as humanity...Unless we set a cloned T-Rex on them.
     
  7. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,192
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Spinks is right on here. As long as there are humans, there will be this argument!
     
  8. Dr. Khan

    Dr. Khan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    237
    Ratings:
    +16
    I plan to provide you with an account of the creation that should satisfy both creationist, intelligent design, and evolutionist all toghether, then somebody can come along and make up somethingelse.
    It's rather lenghty and requires some time.
     
  9. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,369
    Ratings:
    +1,652
    well Limbo if the DNA is similer to birds as opposed to Crocs then... yes.

    as it being a Death knell... I doubt it.. no evidence has thus far persuaded them to move on. They will simply clame that it is a hoax or some such. If you can't discount, deny... That seems to be the pattern.

    wa:do
     
  10. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,000
    Ratings:
    +1,056
    What I was saying is that there is less and less "wiggle room" for Creationism. I knew some Christians that would not believe a pronouncement from God if it went against the Bible.
     
  11. Dr. Khan

    Dr. Khan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    237
    Ratings:
    +16
    :jiggy: Let me first give glory to the one who gave me the wisdom to give an answer that will surely enable both sides in this debate rest.:woohoo:

    Part of Christianity is to boast; to boast in God though it may sound as though I'm boasting in myself. now my experience comes from the texts of the hebrew and the christian new testament.My only source of data is from those resources. I limited my resourses because in the beginning of my walk with God I was so strongly impressed with his abilities, and I was confident that he was able to make me understand according to his word which I had received.


    After many years of consideration how the scientist who has gathered all his information through experiments and tests might come at odds with creationists, who have (accepted the Word of God by faith without substantial proof, as authentic)and are intimidated by Darwin's theory. This is the fault of the fundamentalist today as before and (he is as much a lesson) as Darwin's theory of evolution. Here is a person whose narrow point of view is threatened by someone else's ideas, showing his weakness in faith. Since the scientist is more honest than the religious, I shall side with him. Scientists never claim to have all the answers to life, but are in constant search for viable solutions and answers. The scientist will correct himself; where it seems like it takes a rock up side the head to change our minds about our religious convictions.
    I noticed this when my own family was offended by my change, when I was first converted. I will stand with the believers also because we know that the answers to everything in life is with him who made us all, who tells us there is neither male nor female but a new creature; being one of them myself, I will attempt to give insight into the creation of every living thing that will perhaps satisfy the creationists and the intelligent designers as well.
    Behold, my words shall be as refreshing as a good bottle of port. They offer delight and pleasure to the hearer...now I know why God says to wait on him: (he that believeth shall not make haste).
    Very early on I listened to the religious, their point of view, I wanted them to win, I favored them because they sounded like they were on Jesus' side defending the integrity of the bible.But what I realized later is that they were intimidated by Darwin's theory; if it's proven correct their faith would be devestated. They are fighting for survival of their faith. But this day if they shall look at my reasoning they will know that surely we are but grasshoppers before the living and everlasting almighty God who lives forever, amen.
    :tsk: What? Do you mean it took God only 144 hours to create the heavens and the earth?Or, perhaps if one thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years with the Lord, then it took 52,567,200 hours which is six thousand years including leap years if the Lord used a calendar similar to ours.If this be so then we cannot count the hours that went into the planning of the whole thing which continues to this day to work without our help. The bible says "by the word of the Lord were the heavens made and all the hosts of them by the breath of his mouth." And in another place "through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God so that the things which are seen were not made by that which do appear." And yet in another place " get wisdom ,get knowledge, and in all thy getting get understanding."
    Now I contend that faith is (understanding) it is not blind as some suppose but is an image created in the mind from a promise made by the lips of God. It creates hope and if maintained shall bring reward: for this we rejoice.

    BEFORE GOD EVER SPOKE A WORD HE CONSIDERED EVERY THING HE HAD TO SAY, HE LOOKED AHEAD SO FAR THAT WHEN HE BEGAN TO SPEAK, IT WAS ALREADY DONE.
    In proverbs it is written "prepare thy work without,and make it fit for thyself in the field and afterwards build thine house." Therefore it is easy to understand that millions of years went into the planning of this thing, every detail to the point that things began to form inside of God. Just as a baby is formed in the womb of a woman the entire universe and all matter is formed inside God in every detail. He could very well have created and recreated in his mind until he was satisfied with what he wanted just as the archetect and engineer go over the details of what they wish to build and design. Evolution is therefore possible based upon my thesis and inteligent design is therefore reasonable since God would speak only of that which is Good. Man is good in God's eye but cave man is not worth mentioning since man is the finished product.
    So he would need only 144 hours (six) days or 52,567,200 hours (six thousand) days to describe in detail everything in his creation;( whatever suits your fancy).
    If it took him 52,567,200 hours and if God did not take coffee breaks, did not stop for lunch, did not stop to smoke a cigarette, did not sleep, did not rest any of those six days until the sabbath like he said then we owe him a lot of pay; or as he calls it, Honour, glory, blessing, power, riches, wisdom, and strength: Revelation 5:12
    Let us therefore get aquainted with him who made all things with the words that came out of his mouth.
    I hope that this has helped the christian, believe further in the the kingdom of God and in his power.
     
  12. Snowbear

    Snowbear Nita Okhata

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,420
    Ratings:
    +263
    Cool! I can see common ancestry between ostriches (and other birds) and some of the dinosaurs.

    I still don't see how that fills in the gaps of the theory that supposedly proves people evolved from the bacteria (or whatever) in the early primordial soup.

    People tend to be opinionated and like to defend their opinions and beliefs, so I somehow don't think the discussion will end with this discovery ;)
     
  13. Augustine

    Augustine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16
    Ratings:
    +3
    I find it very hard to believe that they found soft tissue from an animal that has been dead for what now.... 70 million years? I find that fishy to begin with. Nonetheless the similarity to ostrich bone could mean that it is an abnormally sized ostrich? I know, sounds stupid; but that is what it boils down to. They do not have the dating ability to date back that far, carbon dating only extends 50,000 years (and that is stretching it). What else is in the dinosaur bone that they can date. All organic life is made out of carbon. Dinosaurs are as much mythical creations as ancient sea monsters. Scientists only embrace them because it aids them in a theory for the creation of the world that doesn't involve God in it.
     
  14. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,000
    Ratings:
    +1,056
    I'll accept your opinion that soft tissue is hard to believe for I think that was stated in the article. However the ignorance behind your other opinions I will not accept. You really need to learn more
     
  15. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,048
    Ratings:
    +861
    Umm..here ya go...

    Radiometric Dating Methods
     
  16. Halcyon

    Halcyon Lord of the Badgers

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,408
    Ratings:
    +995
    No actual tissue as such was found, it couldn't be, the cells and DNA would have been destroyed millions of years ago. It was the imprint that was left behind, the imprint of the muscle, vascular tissue etc, its rock but in the shape of the original soft tissue, like fossilised imprints of leaves, hair and feathers.

    This isn't such a blow for creationism. I think the key lies in disproving the kinds theory - look at the hyrax and the elephant, related species but so different no sane person would put them in the same class of kind.
     
  17. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,000
    Ratings:
    +1,056
    It would be nice (and short work for us) if any were to offer a definition of kind but like any other potentially damaging argument, the rather repeat the manta.
     
  18. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Convincing proof for evolution is only the dealth knoll of creationism if your view on either is mutually exclusive of the other. In my view, creationism can't be proven scientifically because it's really an ultimate theological question. It is not irrational to think that there had to be a first cause. Intelligent design theory does not answer its own question, and therefore it is not tenable because the designer most likely is the result of naturalistic evolution somewhere else.

    Christians and Jews can confess that God is the Creator, and yet are able to hold to the scientific view of evolution while aknowledging God as the first cause, and we are able to answer the question of the first cause of God unlike the Intelligent Design folks. God doesn't need a first cause because he is apart from nature. Everything in nature requires a first cause, but God doesn't. This theory is not scientifically testable because science is limited to questions related to the natural realm, and therefore remains unaffected by scientific progress, like the interesting link that you provide.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,000
    Ratings:
    +1,056
    Au contraire to some points
    Science, Vol 307, Issue 5717, 1952-1955 , 25 March 2005 subscription required

     
  20. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,048
    Ratings:
    +861
    Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience.

    That sounds like "Soft Tissue" to me.


     
Loading...