[_ Old Earth _] dinosaur were ancestors of birds

[reznwerks]

believe

Reznwerks wrote:

No one is doubting that Christians were alive and have impacted society. That is politics not evidence. With that reasoning you would have to give the same respect to Buddha, Horus and any other notable God that had an impact on civilization.

You don’t believe that those who are willing to die for Islam, Buddha, or whatever believe in it’s claims?
Of course I believe it , that is what I said. Believing doesn't mean its true.

Yes, they really do believe and I respect the fact that they are true believers even though I may not agree with them and wonder why.
Why would you respect someone who you believed in a falsehood? Or do you think they are right?

The disciples of Jesus had living proof that what he taught was from God himself because they saw him alive for 40 days after he rose from the dead.
No we have no proof. We have no solid proof that Jesus ever lived . We have no proof that the apostles even existed. Buddha walked around with 12 disiples also. He also fed the 5000 with loaves of bread. Do you think these similar stories are true as well?

Even doubters like Thomas saw the nail prints and the wound in his side large enough to put his hand in and believed without doubt that it really was the Lord.

The bible says this but we have no independent confirmation of it and no one outside the bible records it. It's a good story but unless we have other reliable confirmation it is strictly up to faith to believe it.
We can be assured they believed what they preached because they went from being frightened cowards to powerful preachers who eventually were martyred.
As I said many people believe things that are not true and many die for it. Believing and dying for ones beliefs does not make them true.

Did the actual men who followed any other religious leader have his resurrection to proclaim? Did they have thousands of eye witnesses to his miracles and to his rising from the dead?
Thousands of eyewitnesses? Where are they? Outside of the bible no one mentions them. No historian at the time of Jesus mentions him. How could this be? A man who shook up the world and no one says one thing about him. Jesus himself wrote nothing down, and no bones or grave remain. How convenient to be whisked up to heaven.

You can make claims but would you back them up with your life if you were faking it? How many phony faith healers do you think would renounce their false claims if they were given the option of admitting their fraud or dying by being boiled in oil?
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this for you to understand. Believing doesn't make something true. Many people die believing things that are not true.
Reznwerks wrote various statements related to doubts and fears and also this comment: [quotef172] Outside of the bible no one records any miracles. In fact as detailed as the historical records of Rome were they don't record any trial, any earthquake, any resurrection of Jesus.

This is a statement from pure ignorance. Some of these links may shed some light on your darkness or an unbiased book from your local library, if you can find one:
What is ignorant is your refusal to look at the real evidence or lack thereof. If you follow your own challenge you will see that none of the people listed as non biblical sources lived within several hundred years of Jesus. Read this very carefully " There is no first hand evidence of Jesus anywhere". As I said your best source would have been Josephus and his works are considered a forgery by most Christian scholars. The so called reference doesn't appear or is mentioned for several hundred years after Josephus is dead and only while his works were in the hands of Christian rulers. Secondly Josephus was a Jew working for the Roman government as an historian. Even by some chance he believed this he certainly would not have written it and kept his job. Josephus was not only an historian he was THE historian . If someone wanted to know something they came to him. Now you can go back and look at your own sites and see if you can find anyone that wrote anything down while Jesus was alive.
http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm

http://www.bib-arch.org/

http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/never_existed.htm

http://www.bibarch.com/

http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/papers/a ... ology.html

http://www.biblicalarcheology.net/Topic ... Archeology

http://everystudent.com/features/faith.html

Reznwerks wrote:

In fact no one records the slaughter of the innocents by Herod , not even the victims. Ever wonder why?

No, I don’t imagine it was a popular move on Herod’s part and he no doubt suppressed the making of any reports by the people with a single threat to return if they uttered a word. Imagine your child has just been slaughtered by your government, lead by a diabolical tyrant capable of wielding such a murderous heinous act on innocent people. You are just an ordinary peasant. Do you write your local newspaper or your congressmen? Do you strap on your hoe and go chop some soldiers? If you do, do you get to tell the world of your revenge or do they dump your body in the sewer? The act will not be forgotten though and it may turn up 50 years later, retold in a history of the one who survived the despicable assassination attempt.
Thats the point. It never turned up anywhere again. Here is another question for you to ponder. John the Baptist was Jesus cousin. How did John escape the wrath of Herod as well. Did the Roman soldiers go looking for birth certificates? Luke which gives detailed account of Jesus never mentions the act Josephus never mentions the act even though de delighted in recording his other misdeeds. Here is another similar story of another savior(s) Krishna Buddha
"Christna's mother was Devaki...an immaculate virgin (but had given birth to eight sons before Christna). Buddha's mother was Maya or Mayadeva; married to her husband (yet immaculate virgin)....Christna is persecuted by Kansa, Tyrant of Madura, but miraculously escapes. In the hope of destroying the child, the king has thousands of male innocents slaughtered. (Isis, II, 537)"
How many of these stories do you have to read to understand what is being said?



Reznwerks wrote:

What else would you expect him to say? If I say it does that mean I'm telling the truth?

If you say it, and claim to be the long awaited, eagerly sought after Messiah I expect you to back it up with at least 3 years of healings including restored limbs and restored sight and raising from the dead.
The problem is the messiah is still being waited for. Jesus did not satisfy the Messianic prophesies. The prophecies you look at for confirmation of Jesus are made up prophecies in the O/T. Go read them and you will see their is no way they can refer to someone to be born several hundred years in the future unless you were told to accept them as such.

Then, you must fulfill all that is written about you in prophesies, including your death by hanging on a tree. Looks like crucifixion since Rome is in power.
Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies. If he was Josephs son he was not the son of God. If he was the son of God then he was not decenced from Davids seed. ( a blood decendent) Lets see what excuse you use to make that one legitamate.

[ Then you have to rise from the dead and appear for at least a few days in perfect health. Good luck.
Its not a big deal if you read the bible. Other characters had come to life after being dead for a long time. As I said the saints getting out of their graves at the crucifixion was an even more impressive miracle than the resurrection. Again no one mentions this and other religions predating Christianity had their own crucifixions and assensions.

Otherwise, you will be discounted at your death as an imposter with your followers scattered to the wind. Your claims to be the truth will be remembered as your biggest lie, if anyone rembers you at all.

I really don't think the creator of the universe is losing any sleep worrying about getting the truth out and whether anyone really believes.
[/quotef172]

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this for you to understand. Believing doesn't make something true. Many people die believing things that are not true.

Stop repeating yourself as if I don’t understand what you’re saying. I don’t base my beliefs on what was written second hand. I have hardly even read Josephus. You’re reading past the evidence. My point is that although believing something does not make it true, dying for something does prove that you believe it whether it is actually true or not. So the disciples can be trusted to have believed what they wrote about Jesus. They believed that he actually did feed the thousands out of a lunch box. They believed that he walked on water and stilled the storm. They believed that he healed thousands of people. They believed that he rose from the dead and walked again with them for 40 days. Were they hallucinating? A diabolical madman with his twelve insane cohorts followed by thousands of gullibles who only thought they were healed and fed?

Not only that, if they never recorded a word he said or a thing he did, we have proof that they died for their beliefs. They were there. They were healed. They saw him with their own eyes and they were so convinced of what he said, they were willing to face lions, flames and other excruciating tortures to inherit the eternal life he promised and demonstrated to them by his own resurrection and ascension. We can deny that he did miracles because we were not there. We must believe by faith. This is not the case of those who were with him in his ministry. They believed because of what they saw. They could not be swayed by torture because they experienced Jesus himself first hand. They proved they believed him by their willingness to die rather than denounce what they knew to be true. What does a person have to do for you to believe them? Write it in their own blood?



Reznwerks wrote:

Thousands of eyewitnesses? Where are they? Outside of the bible no one mentions them. No historian at the time of Jesus mentions him. How could this be?

The links I gave you show conclusive proof of the way Christians were treated. If they renounced their faith they were spared. If not, they were killed by whatever method the masses favored at the time. You refuse to believe the history from the actual days of when Christ was living, accepted for the last 2000 years.

Yet you take on faith the claims of those who count isotopes and make their contentions for millions of years. I would daresay you have never witnessed an isotope being counted. You cite peer pressure and the material rewards and the acclaim of the scientific community as proof enough of their pristine intentions and methods. I have shown that not only are they not inspired to be more unbiased by these conditions, they are, in fact, tempted to be more dishonest to acquire that fame and fortune. The inspiration is not to be honest with your findings but to be cautious in your deception, and don’t embarrass the mighty TOE. If you can’t make a good fake that can pass by the more skeptical of today, don’t bother trying.

Maybe we should reinstate the test God gave for a prophet. If what they said would happen failed to occur, they were stoned to death. Every prophet of God gave prophesies for local events that happened so their credentials for speaking about future events could be trusted. A simple blind test of recent lava flow samples mixed with samples of ancient flows should be done. I was once told by a person who does these datings that such an experiment was done and the recent flow of less than a hundred years dated at between 0 and 50,000 years. This was touted as proof that the method worked because it didn’t date at over 50,000 years. Ludicrous.

 

[reznwerks]

post

Reznwerks wrote:

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this for you to understand. Believing doesn't make something true. Many people die believing things that are not true.

Stop repeating yourself as if I don’t understand what you’re saying. I don’t base my beliefs on what was written second hand.
You have no choice in the matter. Their is no first hand evidence period. Their is no evidence from the time of Jesus that he actually lived outside of the bible. Jesus wrote nothing down, historians alive at the time wrote nothing down, the Roman court records are silent, no one records any earthquake or eclipse etc etc etc.

I have hardly even read Josephus. You’re reading past the evidence. My point is that although believing something does not make it true, dying for something does prove that you believe it whether it is actually true or not.
I said before I don't doubt people believe things and I don't doubt that they die for these beliefs. Believing does not make it true.

So the disciples can be trusted to have believed what they wrote about Jesus.
We have no first hand knowledge that the apostles actually existed but again if they did I don't doubt that they believed or had a motive for writing what they did. When you are trying to gain converts you can write all kinds of stuff that may or may not be true. Don't forget there was political power in religion and still is in some areas. This power brings a lot of perks like money, status, and political influence which are all important motivators for lying.

They believed that he actually did feed the thousands out of a lunch box.

They believed that he walked on water and stilled the storm. They believed that he healed thousands of people. They believed that he rose from the dead and walked again with them for 40 days. Were they hallucinating? A diabolical madman with his twelve insane cohorts followed by thousands of gullibles who only thought they were healed and fed?
Here is what the followers of Buddha believe. Sound familiar and remember Buddha came first.
http://worldzone.net/family/johnanderson/indexz31.shtml

Not only that, if they never recorded a word he said or a thing he did, we have proof that they died for their beliefs.
All we have are unvalidated claims from a book we know not who wrote. As to dying for beliefs we have already discussed this.

They were there. They were healed. They saw him with their own eyes and they were so convinced of what he said, they were willing to face lions, flames and other excruciating tortures to inherit the eternal life he promised and demonstrated to them by his own resurrection and ascension.
Again all we have is what is written in the bible and we have no independent confirmation of what is accurate. Anyone could have written these stories we just don't know. Other deities before Jesus have promised eternal life and rose themselves into heaven.
http://www.newagepointofinfinity.com/NAU/16saviors.htm

We can deny that he did miracles because we were not there.
No we can deny miracles because no one has ever attested to them being possible. Its one thing to believe something may have happened because it is possible it is quite another to believe something that has never happened because it is impossible.

We must believe by faith.
It is all you have and the bible confirms this.

This is not the case of those who were with him in his ministry. They believed because of what they saw. They could not be swayed by torture because they experienced Jesus himself first hand. They proved they believed him by their willingness to die rather than denounce what they knew to be true. What does a person have to do for you to believe them? Write it in their own blood?
Look , those who carried out the mission on 9/11 all believed in what they were doing for God. In fact God granted them their prayers and they were successsful. Does that mean they are right or that their God is real? Believing and dying for beliefs is nothing new.Having it written in the bible is not confirmation of truth either. If you believe it fine but outside of the bible it can't be confirmed.



Reznwerks wrote:[quote:89683] Thousands of eyewitnesses? Where are they? Outside of the bible no one mentions them. No historian at the time of Jesus mentions him. How could this be?

The links I gave you show conclusive proof of the way Christians were treated. If they renounced their faith they were spared. If not, they were killed by whatever method the masses favored at the time. You refuse to believe the history from the actual days of when Christ was living, accepted for the last 2000 years.
No one doubts that there were Christians. Lets look at all the other religious persecution around the world that are not Christian. Are those religions true? Persecution is not proof of truth anymore than dying for what one believes is truth.

Yet you take on faith the claims of those who count isotopes and make their contentions for millions of years.
Absolutely that is hard evidence that is testable. That is hard evidence.

I would daresay you have never witnessed an isotope being counted.
I don't have to. I know that there are lots of people that have gone to school and spent lots of money to get their education. I have no reason to believe that so many people would spend this amount of time and effort to lie to themselves and others. What would be gained?More importantly look at what would be gained if they exposed the lie that you keep attesting too. Sorry but it just aint so.

You cite peer pressure and the material rewards and the acclaim of the scientific community as proof enough of their pristine intentions and methods. I have shown that not only are they not inspired to be more unbiased by these conditions, they are, in fact, tempted to be more dishonest to acquire that fame and fortune. The inspiration is not to be honest with your findings but to be cautious in your deception, and don’t embarrass the mighty TOE. If you can’t make a good fake that can pass by the more skeptical of today, don’t bother trying.
You have pointed out a few bad apples and I have countered with far more.

Maybe we should reinstate the test God gave for a prophet. If what they said would happen failed to occur, they were stoned to death.
Jesus promised that some standing here would not taste of death before his return.

Every prophet of God gave prophesies for local events that happened so their credentials for speaking about future events could be trusted.
They did not plain and simple. You have heard that and are now repeating it but you have not done your homework. Here is a link for bible prophecies that failed. Look in your own book and try to dispute.

http://www.wordwiz72.com/bible.html#Failed%20Prophecies

A simple blind test of recent lava flow samples mixed with samples of ancient flows should be done. I was once told by a person who does these datings that such an experiment was done and the recent flow of less than a hundred years dated at between 0 and 50,000 years. This was touted as proof that the method worked because it didn’t date at over 50,000 years. Ludicrous.
Well then if this is so earht shattering why didn't he break new ground and bring it to the court of scientific inquiry? Anyone can make claims. All that is asked is back them up with proof and evidence.[/quote:89683]

 

[unred typo]

reznwerks wrote:

Here is what the followers of Buddha believe. Sound familiar and remember Buddha came first.
http://worldzone.net/family/johnanderson/indexz31.shtml

LOL… You really need to follow up on some of these web pages you post. This one is too funny. Do you ever read them or do you only list them just to make a bold statement that has no basis in fact? Let’s examine it’s claims for Buddha for instance. From your site we learn: ~ Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected. He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a "small basket of cakes," and walked on water. He had 12 disciples…..

Rubbish. The actual story is quite different and has no resemblance to either the real Buddha stories or the gospel of Christ. Here are some quotes from sites promoting Buddhism:

“For nine months of the year Buddha and the three hundred to five hundred disciples who traveled with him wandered through the countryside, preaching, acting not as priests but as teachers of the way of enlightenment through the example of their lives. During the three months of the rainy season they settled outside a town, sufficiently far away so that they could meditate, but close enough to beg for food. There the disciples waited on Buddha and listened to his teachings, and people from near and far also came to hear his words.

He did not claim to be a God and he has never been regarded as such by Buddhists. He was a human being who became Enlightened, understanding life in the deepest way possible.

Sakyamuni knew that this day he would reach Enlightenment, and had been waiting under the tree before beginning his begging rounds. Then, with the golden bowl of rice-milk, he first takes a bath in the Neranjara River, then sits facing east and divides Sujata’s gift into forty-nine little balls of rice all of which he eats. The text says, “Now that was the only food he had for forty-nine days, during the seven times seven days he spent, after he became a Buddha, at the foot of the Tree of Enlightenment. During all that time he had no other food.


Rather, in the Lalitavistara gods appear during the six-years fast with the offer to infuse sustenance through the Buddha’s pores, which the Buddha rejects as a “lie.†Other texts relate yet other roles for the gods during the six-year and forty-nine day fasts, but for us that the gods are involved in the fasting sequences is the important point. It is that food or bodily sustenance are offered by both gods and humans, as both classes of beings are supporters of the Buddha who participate in bringing him back to health by the essential act of a devotee, the giving of food.


When Buddha was taken sick the first time, Ananda had asked what was to be done with his remains, and Buddha had simply told him not to honor them. But after Buddha's death his body was burned, and the teeth, clothing, and pieces of bone were divided among all those who laid claim to them: among those, the rulers of the various villages and kingdoms where important events in the life of Buddha had occurred. In the end, ten monuments were built for Buddha, including one for the vessel that had held his ashes and another for the ashes themselves. A whole town was built around the monument that held the hair that Buddha had given one of his disciples.â€Â

I think I have realized your problem. Your truth meter is broken. You give the same credence to an obvious fallacious fabrication as you would to a meticulously written and carefully researched history. The truth is that there are several references to Roman officers who wrote asking leaders what to do with Christians. They were told to get them to denounce their faith or kill them. They chose to die rather than deny the Lord that they had had miraculously been healed and fed by, seen rise up into heaven with their own eyes. That is a testimony you can trust.

 

[reznwerks]

lol

reznwerks wrote:

Here is what the followers of Buddha believe. Sound familiar and remember Buddha came first.
http://worldzone.net/family/johnanderson/indexz31.shtml

LOL… You really need to follow up on some of these web pages you post. This one is too funny. Do you ever read them or do you only list them just to make a bold statement that has no basis in fact? Let’s examine it’s claims for Buddha for instance. From your site we learn: ~ Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected. He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a "small basket of cakes," and walked on water. He had 12 disciples…..

Rubbish. The actual story is quite different and has no resemblance to either the real Buddha stories or the gospel of Christ. Here are some quotes from sites promoting Buddhism:

“For nine months of the year Buddha and the three hundred to five hundred disciples who traveled with him wandered through the countryside, preaching, acting not as priests but as teachers of the way of enlightenment through the example of their lives. During the three months of the rainy season they settled outside a town, sufficiently far away so that they could meditate, but close enough to beg for food. There the disciples waited on Buddha and listened to his teachings, and people from near and far also came to hear his words.
Like Jesus the Buddha's existance is questionable. You really don't see any similarities with Jesus and Buddha?Here check this link for the reference to the diciples. How many saviours do you think have diciples? I am not sure but I think ALL of them. Why?
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:HB ... en&start=7

He did not claim to be a God and he has never been regarded as such by Buddhists. He was a human being who became Enlightened, understanding life in the deepest way possible.
I never said he was God. What I said is that Christianity is a mish mash of legends and if you honestly look at what the many previous saviours promised and the legends and miracles associated with them Jesus and Christianity are nothing new and therefor not special.

Sakyamuni knew that this day he would reach Enlightenment, and had been waiting under the tree before beginning his begging rounds. Then, with the golden bowl of rice-milk, he first takes a bath in the Neranjara River, then sits facing east and divides Sujata’s gift into forty-nine little balls of rice all of which he eats. The text says, “Now that was the only food he had for forty-nine days, during the seven times seven days he spent, after he became a Buddha, at the foot of the Tree of Enlightenment. During all that time he had no other food.
So Buddha fasted like Jesus.


Rather, in the Lalitavistara gods appear during the six-years fast with the offer to infuse sustenance through the Buddha’s pores, which the Buddha rejects as a “lie.†Other texts relate yet other roles for the gods during the six-year and forty-nine day fasts, but for us that the gods are involved in the fasting sequences is the important point. It is that food or bodily sustenance are offered by both gods and humans, as both classes of beings are supporters of the Buddha who participate in bringing him back to health by the essential act of a devotee, the giving of food.
You are really ignoring the other more important similarities between Jesus and Buddha. Have you tried comparing Krishna yet? How about Horus?
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encycl ... _Jesus.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm




When Buddha was taken sick the first time, Ananda had asked what was to be done with his remains, and Buddha had simply told him not to honor them. But after Buddha's death his body was burned, and the teeth, clothing, and pieces of bone were divided among all those who laid claim to them: among those, the rulers of the various villages and kingdoms where important events in the life of Buddha had occurred. In the end, ten monuments were built for Buddha, including one for the vessel that had held his ashes and another for the ashes themselves. A whole town was built around the monument that held the hair that Buddha had given one of his disciples.â€Â


I think I have realized your problem. Your truth meter is broken. You give the same credence to an obvious fallacious fabrication as you would to a meticulously written and carefully researched history. The truth is that there are several references to Roman officers who wrote asking leaders what to do with Christians. They were told to get them to denounce their faith or kill them. They chose to die rather than deny the Lord that they had had miraculously been healed and fed by, seen rise up into heaven with their own eyes. That is a testimony you can trust.
Sorry but it no more evidence than those who died flying planes into the world trade center believing God granted them their wish.Again I don't doubt that their were Christians and I don't doubt they died believing. You have to realize that everyone wants to live forever and wanting to is a powerful motivator. If you have gullible people that have already accepted other saviors in the past and you have charismatic people preaching it is not hard to accept the promises as real. For you to use sacrafice as evidence you have to accept everyone elses Gods as real and I don't think you want to do that yet. As to ignoring the evidence it is you that refuses to accept the similarities of past religion and similar stories. If you don't want to accept what is in the sites I have given you then you are free to go to the library and or book store and get the books on the subjects and read them yourself. Keep checking out the references until you find something you might accept as real. If the only book you are going to accept as real is the bible then unfortunately for you all other books and info are false. Sooner or later you will awaken from your slumber and realize all is not quite as you imagined.

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

No one doubts that there were Christians. Lets look at all the other religious persecution around the world that are not Christian. Are those religions true?

Every religion has a little truth and a little hope and if that is all you have to cling to, you may be willing to believe it and you may suffer for it. If none of it’s claims are convincing enough, you may become atheistic. If you will recall, the Bible explains the formation of other religions. Noah’s sons had children. No doubt, Noah instructed them in all the history of the creation and the teachings of God to do justly and to honor their maker, God.

As the children of Shem, Ham and Japheth grew and multiplied, they were scattered after the building of the Tower of Babel. They took whatever stories they had been taught by their parents and passed those to their children who either embellished them or changed them however they wanted. Just as the grandson of Christian heritage may be taught by parents that evolution is the way man came to be, the descendants of Noah lost all or part of what he taught to their predecessors.

Are these religions true? I don’t know. If you would like, we can take each one on it’s own merits, compare it to the Bible and see how much of the original story is left. From my meager studies, I have initially not been impressed with what truth remains in most religions. The majority of what I saw were wild stories you would make up to satisfy the curiosity of a child.



Reznwerks wrote:

Persecution is not proof of truth anymore than dying for what one believes is truth.

Of course it isn’t. Is that what you think I’m telling you? I’m saying that the very same people who witnessed the miracles, were healed and fed by his hand, and then saw his death and resurrection, actually must have believed the claims he made because we have documents that prove that they were given the option of denying their beliefs and being spared an excruciating death. They really, really, really believed they saw him feed them, heal them, die and rise again. As the actual eyewitnesses died off, those who believed after them were convinced by their testimony written in blood and wrote their witness accounts down so they would not be lost.

As you pointed out, “Jesus promised that some standing here would not taste of death before his return.†This statement you have actually misquoted. Most hearing this may have believed as you have said that meant when he returned in his glory and not when he began his kingdom. Luke records his words as; “till they see the kingdom of God. Mark says; “till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power,†Matthew says â€Âtill they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.†When Jesus rose from the dead and told his disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they were endued with great power, would be the time when he came in his kingdom and they would see the power of the Holy Spirit come down on them. He told us that the kingdom of God is within us. His reign is over our hearts until his physical return.



Reznwerks wrote:

http://www.wordwiz72.com/bible.html#Failed Prophecies

Your link doesn’t seem to work or the site is down.

Reznwerks wrote:

Well then if this is so earht shattering why didn't he break new ground and bring it to the court of scientific inquiry? Anyone can make claims. All that is asked is back them up with proof and evidence.

He didn’t “bring it to the court of scientific inquiry†because he thought it was great results to get a date of between 0 and 50,000 years. He saw nothing wrong with this outcome. Only normal people with normal expectations see the folly of the situation.

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

Like Jesus the Buddha's existance is questionable. You really don't see any similarities with Jesus and Buddha?Here check this link for the reference to the diciples. How many saviours do you think have diciples? I am not sure but I think ALL of them. Why?
I never said he was God. What I said is that Christianity is a mish mash of legends and if you honestly look at what the many previous saviours promised and the legends and miracles associated with them Jesus and Christianity are nothing new and therefor not special.

Actually you do have a site other than the one you posted (that one is a ridiculous fabrication of nonsense) that shows Buddha with 12 disciples in a picture in a ‘travel to Buddha-town’ advertisement. Great. Not such a strange co-incidence since there were twelve tribes of Israel, coming from the twelve sons of Abraham. Just who is copying who? Remember, Abraham lived before Buddha.



Reznwerks wrote:

You are really ignoring the other more important similarities between Jesus and Buddha. Have you tried comparing Krishna yet? How about Horus?

When I saw how silly the Buddha comparison was, I didn’t bother. I really don’t have time to waste chasing down these grade school quality arguments against Christianity. It is not a mishmash of legends. The arguments presented make as much sense as saying Jesus was a fictional character inspired by Pop Eye the Sailorman because Pop Eye predated Jesus in Egyptian hieroglyphic figures where he was shown to have spent a lot of time on boats, had super human powers, went about doing good deeds, once stilled a storm, killed a dragon by stomping it’s head, walked on water and was very fond of Olive Oil. Just another pathetic, desperate attempt to discredit the Son of God.


Reznwerks wrote:

Sorry but it no more evidence than those who died flying planes into the world trade center believing God granted them their wish.Again I don't doubt that their were Christians and I don't doubt they died believing. You have to realize that everyone wants to live forever and wanting to is a powerful motivator. If you have gullible people that have already accepted other saviors in the past and you have charismatic people preaching it is not hard to accept the promises as real. For you to use sacrafice as evidence you have to accept everyone elses Gods as real and I don't think you want to do that yet.

If you don’t have enough logical ability to see the difference between the quality of the beliefs of suicide pilots and the disciples of Christ, I’m afraid it is quite hopeless to try to reason with you. The disciples had a first hand personal relationship with Jesus where they experienced his actual power, wisdom and miracles. Suicide pilots have been raised to believe the myth they were taught from the time they were babies.

There are gullible people who will follow a crazed lunatic because he makes claims they want to believe. From reading the gospels, is that how you view the disciples?

 

[reznwerks]

buddha

Reznwerks wrote:

Like Jesus the Buddha's existance is questionable. You really don't see any similarities with Jesus and Buddha?Here check this link for the reference to the diciples. How many saviours do you think have diciples? I am not sure but I think ALL of them. Why?
I never said he was God. What I said is that Christianity is a mish mash of legends and if you honestly look at what the many previous saviours promised and the legends and miracles associated with them Jesus and Christianity are nothing new and therefor not special.

Actually you do have a site other than the one you posted (that one is a ridiculous fabrication of nonsense) that shows Buddha with 12 disciples in a picture in a ‘travel to Buddha-town’ advertisement. Great. Not such a strange co-incidence since there were twelve tribes of Israel, coming from the twelve sons of Abraham. Just who is copying who? Remember, Abraham lived before Buddha.
Check your Brittanicca. Buddha predates Christianity.



Reznwerks wrote:[quote:f9a6a] You are really ignoring the other more important similarities between Jesus and Buddha. Have you tried comparing Krishna yet? How about Horus?

When I saw how silly the Buddha comparison was, I didn’t bother. I really don’t have time to waste chasing down these grade school quality arguments against Christianity. It is not a mishmash of legends
As I said you can pick and choose what you want to believe but all those deities PREDATED ( means before) Jesus.

The arguments presented make as much sense as saying Jesus was a fictional character inspired by Pop Eye the Sailorman because Pop Eye predated Jesus in Egyptian hieroglyphic figures where he was shown to have spent a lot of time on boats, had super human powers, went about doing good deeds, once stilled a storm, killed a dragon by stomping it’s head, walked on water and was very fond of Olive Oil. Just another pathetic, desperate attempt to discredit the Son of God.
I think you may be beginning to understand the issue at hand.


Reznwerks wrote:

Sorry but it no more evidence than those who died flying planes into the world trade center believing God granted them their wish.Again I don't doubt that their were Christians and I don't doubt they died believing. You have to realize that everyone wants to live forever and wanting to is a powerful motivator. If you have gullible people that have already accepted other saviors in the past and you have charismatic people preaching it is not hard to accept the promises as real. For you to use sacrafice as evidence you have to accept everyone elses Gods as real and I don't think you want to do that yet.

If you don’t have enough logical ability to see the difference between the quality of the beliefs of suicide pilots and the disciples of Christ, I’m afraid it is quite hopeless to try to reason with you.
Quality of the beliefs? LOL How about asking what the likelyhood of those claims being true. In order for you to accept what is presented in your beliefs you must also accept what you see in the scandal sheets at your local supermarket. Do you really believe it was likely that a supernatural being could impregnate a human? Do you really believe that the creator of the universe would be a racist and favor one tribe over another? Do you really think a supernatural being would make such a rule as to say that if you really want to live forever all you have to do is BELIEVE in me?

The disciples had a first hand personal relationship with Jesus where they experienced his actual power, wisdom and miracles. Suicide pilots have been raised to believe the myth they were taught from the time they were babies.
We have no first hand info on the disiples , their lives or reality outside of the bible. All we have are stories and first names. That is all. It is only real if you believe it. OOOPS I said it again.

There are gullible people who will follow a crazed lunatic because he makes claims they want to believe. From reading the gospels, is that how you view the disciples?
I really do think you are making progress.
http://www.christianitymeme.org/


[/quote:f9a6a]

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

Check your Brittanicca. Buddha predates Christianity.
As I said you can pick and choose what you want to believe but all those deities PREDATED ( means before) Jesus.

[/quote] My comment was about the number 12 coming first from twelve tribes of Israel, coming from the twelve sons of Abraham. Jesus was born of the tribe of David, remember? Abraham lived before Buddha. Christianity comes as a culmination of the promises to Abraham. Those deities were around since the beginning of the creation since they were inspired by entities of the unseen world of spirits and demons. Since you don’t believe in what you can’t see, you‘ll probably be confused by these things and draw the wrong conclusions from the deceptions that demons perpetuate.
Reznwerks wrote:

I think you may be beginning to understand the issue at hand.

I think you may be losing it. It is easy to make false assumptions and claims that have no basis in reality by stringing together a few chosen or even totally false claims backed up by real facts. I can claim that Abraham Lincoln was the founder of the demonic cult of Black hat worshippers and trace it’s roots to Salem witches but it doesn’t make it true, nor does it discredit Abraham Lincoln or prove that he never existed. The arguments you have presented would impress an eighth grader but only if he spends most of his time zoned out in virtual reality games.

Reznwerks wrote:

Quality of the beliefs? LOL How about asking what the likelyhood of those claims being true. In order for you to accept what is presented in your beliefs you must also accept what you see in the scandal sheets at your local supermarket.

Do you believe that Christians died in coliseums who could have denounced their beliefs in Jesus and been spared that horror or have the facts of that bit of history been corrupted in your mind? Do you accept any facts of history or do you just go by what the present prophets of science tell you?

Reznwerks wrote:

Do you really believe it was likely that a supernatural being could impregnate a human? Do you really believe that the creator of the universe would be a racist and favor one tribe over another? Do you really think a supernatural being would make such a rule as to say that if you really want to live forever all you have to do is BELIEVE in me?

The forming of a human being from man’s DNA and God’s DNA is no stranger than to say a sheep can be cloned. I suppose you believed that.
The Bible doesn’t teach that God is a racist. Are you racist because you chose one girl to marry at the exclusion of all others? Are you a racist because you have a best friend? Are you a racist because you chose one phone company over another? God chose the man Abraham to be father of the nation through which he would speak to the world. He chose different members of Abraham’s descendants to carry the DNA from which his son would be born.
Actually, he didn’t say what it is preached today by most evangelicals. Jesus said to believe in him would bring us into favor with God and God would reward us with eternal life. This belief is not merely belief in the facts of his life and death but in trusting what he stood for and obeying what he preached. He taught love, humility, mercy and forgiveness. When you accept those things as your way of life, you prepare yourself for his return when he will draw (think ‘magnet‘) those to himself who have enough of this doctrine (think ‘iron‘) in their hearts and minds. God isn’t going to tolerate anyone’s attitude of disobedience, greed, hate and discontent. You must be willing to give up any thing that offends his nature if you are going to live forever in his new, improved world.

Reznwerks wrote:

We have no first hand info on the disiples , their lives or reality outside of the bible. All we have are stories and first names. That is all. It is only real if you believe it. OOOPS I said it again.

The Bible is not one book but a collection of books and letters. You have four separate eyewitness accounts. These eyewitnesses died for their beliefs. We can spell it out with their bones if it makes you happy. You have actual letters of Roman leaders directing that they could be released if they recanted. You can go to the ruins of the coliseums and walk among the rubble. How much history do you accept that has not been so documented?

Reznwerks wrote:

I really do think you are making progress.

I’m glad to hear it. I thought I was getting nowhere with you. :

 

[reznwerks]

history

Reznwerks wrote:

Check your Brittanicca. Buddha predates Christianity.
As I said you can pick and choose what you want to believe but all those deities PREDATED ( means before) Jesus.

My comment was about the number 12 coming first from twelve tribes of Israel, coming from the twelve sons of Abraham. Jesus was born of the tribe of David, remember? Abraham lived before Buddha. Christianity comes as a culmination of the promises to Abraham. Those deities were around since the beginning of the creation since they were inspired by entities of the unseen world of spirits and demons. Since you don’t believe in what you can’t see, you‘ll probably be confused by these things and draw the wrong conclusions from the deceptions that demons perpetuate.
My comment was the uncanny coincidence of Buddha having 12 diciples and Jesus having 12 diciples. Abraham reality is as real as any of the apotles and Jesus. There is no evidence as to their authenticity nor historical accuracy.
Reznwerks wrote:

I think you may be beginning to understand the issue at hand.

I think you may be losing it. It is easy to make false assumptions and claims that have no basis in reality by stringing together a few chosen or even totally false claims backed up by real facts.
How is that possible? LOL

I can claim that Abraham Lincoln was the founder of the demonic cult of Black hat worshippers and trace it’s roots to Salem witches but it doesn’t make it true, nor does it discredit Abraham Lincoln or prove that he never existed. The arguments you have presented would impress an eighth grader but only if he spends most of his time zoned out in virtual reality games.
You are so close to understanding it is frustrating. Yes you can claim it but can you prove it? Now you take the bible and its stories as factual but can you prove it? The answer is as you put it "doesn't make it true".

Reznwerks wrote:

Quality of the beliefs? LOL How about asking what the likelyhood of those claims being true. In order for you to accept what is presented in your beliefs you must also accept what you see in the scandal sheets at your local supermarket.

Do you believe that Christians died in coliseums who could have denounced their beliefs in Jesus and been spared that horror or have the facts of that bit of history been corrupted in your mind? Do you accept any facts of history or do you just go by what the present prophets of science tell you?
Look how many time do I have to tell you that I have no doubt that Christians lived and died and were persecuted. Religions all through history have the same stories. It doesn't validate the belief. [/color[

Reznwerks wrote:

Do you really believe it was likely that a supernatural being could impregnate a human? Do you really believe that the creator of the universe would be a racist and favor one tribe over another? Do you really think a supernatural being would make such a rule as to say that if you really want to live forever all you have to do is BELIEVE in me?

The forming of a human being from man’s DNA and God’s DNA is no stranger than to say a sheep can be cloned. I suppose you believed that.
The Bible doesn’t teach that God is a racist. Are you racist because you chose one girl to marry at the exclusion of all others? Are you a racist because you have a best friend? Are you a racist because you chose one phone company over another? God chose the man Abraham to be father of the nation through which he would speak to the world. He chose different members of Abraham’s descendants to carry the DNA from which his son would be born.
Making choices is not racist. I don't favor one child of mine over another nor do I plot against one child using the other. A good father does not do this and the creator of the universe (if good) would not do it either. Secondly the creator of the universe would not need an intercessory to speak on his behalf.
Actually, he didn’t say what it is preached today by most evangelicals. Jesus said to believe in him would bring us into favor with God and God would reward us with eternal life. This belief is not merely belief in the facts of his life and death but in trusting what he stood for and obeying what he preached. He taught love, humility, mercy and forgiveness.
T he facts of his life have never been established and if you looked at the Brittanica you would see it. IT only uses the bible as reference as not to offend anyone. If other evidence were available don't you think it would be used?

When you accept those things as your way of life, you prepare yourself for his return when he will draw (think ‘magnet‘) those to himself who have enough of this doctrine (think ‘iron‘) in their hearts and minds. God isn’t going to tolerate anyone’s attitude of disobedience, greed, hate and discontent. You must be willing to give up any thing that offends his nature if you are going to live forever in his new, improved world.
So how do you know this? Are you saying you talk to God and he answers? If so can others hear him?

Reznwerks wrote:

We have no first hand info on the disiples , their lives or reality outside of the bible. All we have are stories and first names. That is all. It is only real if you believe it. OOOPS I said it again.

The Bible is not one book but a collection of books and letters. You have four separate eyewitness accounts.
Eyewittness accounts of what? By whom? All we have are stories in the bible about characters whose biography cannot be determin ed outside the book they are mentioned. That is not first hand evidence.

These eyewitnesses died for their beliefs. We can spell it out with their bones if it makes you happy.
The bones have never been found.

You have actual letters of Roman leaders directing that they could be released if they recanted.
Recanted of what? Their beliefs? That is not proof their is reason to believe. Prisoners of war could have been freed if they denounced their country. Some did some didn't. What does that prove?


You can go to the ruins of the coliseums and walk among the rubble. How much history do you accept that has not been so documented?
The issue is not about history it is about truth and evidence.Their isn't any.

Reznwerks wrote:

I really do think you are making progress.

I’m glad to hear it. I thought I was getting nowhere with you. :[/quote]

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

My comment was the uncanny coincidence of Buddha having 12 diciples and Jesus having 12 diciples. Abraham reality is as real as any of the apotles and Jesus. There is no evidence as to their authenticity nor historical accuracy.

You accuse me of paranoid conspiracy theories? LOL. You think all of the Jews and Christians for the last few thousand years are involved in an elaborate fabrication of history. The only stories you believe are those made up by evolutionary spin doctors. In a few hundred years they can deny that Abraham Lincoln existed.
Regardless of your assertion that Abraham didn’t exist, the record of his having 12 sons and their significance to the beliefs of both Jew and Christian cannot be denied. Abraham, truth or fiction, was a fact before Buddha. Furthermore, Buddha had more than 12 and that number varied widely. Your amazing co incidence is of the same quality as my fictional example of Popeye, or do you think I have a case for my own web site? I’m sure that I could sucker a certain following to believe that Jesus was fabricated from old episodes of Popeye. So what does that prove? Yes, there are lies and believers of lies. Does that prove there is nothing true?
Reznwerks wrote:

UT: “totally false claims backed up by real facts.â€Â
How is that possible? LOL

Scroll up to my example of Popeye. It’s not so hard to do.

Reznwerks wrote:

You are so close to understanding it is frustrating. Yes you can claim it but can you prove it? Now you take the bible and its stories as factual but can you prove it? The answer is as you put it "doesn't make it true". Look how many time do I have to tell you that I have no doubt that Christians lived and died and were persecuted. Religions all through history have the same stories. It doesn't validate the belief.
T he facts of his life have never been established and if you looked at the Brittanica you would see it. IT only uses the bible as reference as not to offend anyone. If other evidence were available don't you think it would be used?
The bones have never been found.
Recanted of what? Their beliefs? That is not proof their is reason to believe. Prisoners of war could have been freed if they denounced their country. Some did some didn't. What does that prove?
The issue is not about history it is about truth and evidence.Their isn't any.
Eyewittness accounts of what? By whom? All we have are stories in the bible about characters whose biography cannot be determin ed outside the book they are mentioned. That is not first hand evidence.

OK. So you think I’m so close to understanding that all the religions of the world have the same value and no proof to support their claims. Everyone is duped into submission by unscrupulous charlatans who use messages from god to control and manipulate the ignorant masses. God is just a myth, legend or figment of some political despot’s evil imagination. You are the enlightened one who doesn’t believe and you have no motive for your unbelief, nothing in your lifestyle that offends God and no hidden agenda or personal reasons to prove Christianity as a farce. You just have a love for truth and exposing misinformation. I wonder if you spend as much time trying to destroy the faith of Muslims or Hindus.

People who die for their country believe in their country. People who don’t really believe in what their country stands for won’t die for it. People who die for their belief in Allah believe in Allah and what they have been told about the hereafter. They are raised to believe in their faith from children. They will die for the claims of Islam. This is the same as dying for your belief in Christianity. This is not the same as dying for Christ because you have experienced his miracles yourself. Believers in Christ saw his miracles and his resurrected body. They believed because they saw the evidence first hand. They wrote down their eyewitness accounts. They believed to the point of death and torture. If they didn’t believe it, they could have walked away from the persecution inflicted on Christians. Can you possibly understand the difference? For you, the evidence is by faith. For them, it was undeniable truth.
The eyewitness accounts are not one book. The Bible is a collection of these individual testimonies. You don’t believe them. That’s your choice. I happen to believe that since these men were willing to die tortuous deaths, they believed what they wrote. They weren’t alone. There were thousands of witnesses to these events who also died tortuous deaths. Just like there are those who deny the holocaust, there are those who refuse to believe the history of the Bible. Some have gone so far as to destroy writings that give evidence of it’s truth hoping they will make it impossible to believe. Jesus wondered if when he returned if he would even find any faith on the earth. Eventually though, every knee will bow to him and everyone will know it was true.

Reznwerks wrote:

Making choices is not racist. I don't favor one child of mine over another nor do I plot against one child using the other. A good father does not do this and the creator of the universe (if good) would not do it either. Secondly the creator of the universe would not need an intercessory to speak on his behalf.

Your argument is absurd. I guess he should have had his only son born of every virgin on earth and not favor one over the other.
Jesus was the express image of the invisible God. He chose to be one of us. He wanted to walk a mile in our shoes. Sounds like a pretty cool God to me.


Reznwerks wrote:

So how do you know this? Are you saying you talk to God and he answers? If so can others hear him?

Yes, I talk to God and he answers. Yes, you can too. No, it’s not an audible voice that tells me to kill people or fly out 5th story windows.

 

[Khaine]

Getting this thread back on topic. The following provides some very interesting new material for debate.

http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_06/133.htm

June 2, 2005

Dinosaur Fossil Bone Leads to Gender, Age Determinations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

It’s a girl … and she’s pregnant!

Paleontologists at North Carolina State University have determined that a 68 million year-old Tyrannosaurus Rex fossil from Montana is that of a young female, and that she was producing eggs when she died.

The proof, they say, is in the bones.

In a case of a literal “lucky break,†the scientists discovered unusual bone tissue lining the hollow cavity of the T. rex’s broken leg bone. In a paper published in the June 3 issue of the journal Science, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology with a joint appointment at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, and her technician, Jennifer Wittmeyer, along with colleagues at Montana State University, share their findings and say that the presence of this particular tissue provides evidence of the dinosaur’s gender and a connection between the extinct giants and living birds, specifically ostriches and emus.

Schweitzer believes that the unusual tissue inside the T. rex bone is actually medullary bone: a thin layer of highly vascular bone that is found in present-day female birds only during ovulation. This estrogen-linked reproductive bone tissue is laid down inside the hollow leg bones of the birds and persists until the last egg is laid, at which time it is completely resorbed into the bird’s body. Its formation is triggered by an increase in estrogen levels, and the temporary tissue provides the calcium necessary to form eggshells. Medullary bone is only found in present-day female birds; no other egg-laying species – including crocodiles, the other living dinosaur relative – produces this tissue naturally.

Because the dinosaur tissues didn’t look exactly like pictures published of medullary bone in living birds like chicken and quail, Schweitzer’s team compared the tissue from the femur of the T. rex to that taken from leg bones of more primitive ratites, or flightless birds, such as ostriches and emus. These birds share more features with dinosaurs than other present-day birds. They selected an ostrich and an emu in different stages of their laying cycles, when medullary bone is present.

Schweitzer viewed the tissues under both a light and an electron microscope, and found that the dinosaur tissues were virtually identical to those of the modern birds in form, location and distribution. Demineralization – the chemical removal of a bone’s minerals in order to obtain organic material that is much easier to work with in a lab environment – of the samples revealed that the medullary bone from the ostrich and emu was virtually identical in structure, orientation and even color, with that seen in the T. rex.

Since only females produce medullary bone, its presence in the T. rex femur indicates that this fossil was a female, and probably one who died toward the end of her laying cycle. From a biological perspective, the tissue is another link between dinosaurs and living birds.

“The discovery of medullary bone in the T. rex is important because it allows us to objectively sex a dinosaur,†says Schweitzer. “It also adds to the robust support linking birds and dinosaurs and shows that their reproductive physiologies may have been similar. Hopefully we’ll be able to identify features within dinosaurs that will help us determine the gender of our other fossils, and lead to more information about their herd structure or family groups.â€Â

The N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences will soon become the new home of the cast of the thigh bone. “We’re pleased to be able to provide a way for the public to see for themselves evidence that after millions of years, soft tissue can actually be preserved in dinosaur bone,†said Dr. Betsy M. Bennett, museum director. The cast will be placed in the museum’s Paleo Lab along with the complete story of where it was found, how it was excavated and how Schweitzer discovered the unique tissue cells in the hollow.

The research was funded by NC State, the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences and the National Science Foundation.

 

[unred typo]

Chaine wrote:

Getting this thread back on topic. The following provides some very interesting new material for debate.

It is interesting that there is no mention of the carbon dating of this bone. It is interesting that the bone is still considered to be millions of years old in spite of previous assertions by scientists that this type of soft tissue could not actually be preserved for that length of time. It is interesting that there is no mention of a flurry of scientific endeavor to saw open other bones to check if there are soft tissues inside non medullary bones of other specimens but an inference is made that because these are uniquely preserved because they consist of a thin layer of highly vascular bone. Instead we see a concentrated effort to define the findings within the previous assumptions of millions of years, in spite of this obvious evidence in favor of recent burial of these creatures. Are we interested in truth or in proving the millions of years needed to support the TOE?

 

[Barbarian]

It is interesting that there is no mention of the carbon dating of this bone.

To old to do that. C-14 works only for a few tens of thousands of years. Because the bones came from strata millions of years old, no C-14 testing was done.

Assuming no percolation from groundwater, it would be reported out at maybe >30,000 years old, which is the limit of the method.

It is interesting that the bone is still considered to be millions of years old in spite of previous assertions by scientists that this type of soft tissue could not actually be preserved for that length of time.

I'd like to see some evidence that it can't. Do you have any?

This isn't news, BTW, some soft material was found in some invertebrate fossils, but it too, was no longer tissue, but was replaced by other materials.

 

[unred typo]

The Barbarian wrote:

To old to do that. C-14 works only for a few tens of thousands of years. Because the bones came from strata millions of years old, no C-14 testing was done.
Assuming no percolation from groundwater, it would be reported out at maybe >30,000 years old, which is the limit of the method.

Why is it assumed that it was too old? Are you saying that it is impossible that a T Rex could have been living less than 30,000 years ago? If so, why?How was the strata dated at millions of years old anyways?

Unred previous

:It is interesting that the bone is still considered to be millions of years old in spite of previous assertions by scientists that this type of soft tissue could not actually be preserved for that length of time.

The Barbarian wrote:

I'd like to see some evidence that it can't. Do you have any?

I’d like to see evidence that it has. Do you have any?


The Barbarian wrote:

This isn't news, BTW, some soft material was found in some invertebrate fossils, but it too, was no longer tissue, but was replaced by other materials.

Maybe you could explain the demineralization process for us. The article says that Demineralization is the chemical removal of a bone’s minerals in order to obtain organic material that is much easier to work with in a lab environment. This clearly says that it is organic material. Organic material = tissue.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Why is it assumed that it was too old? Are you saying that it is impossible that a T Rex could have been living less than 30,000 years ago? If so, why?How was the strata dated at millions of years old anyways?

There's the law of superposition for one, if things are collecting on top of one another things that are higher up are younger than things further down. Sedimentary rock strata take a long long long time to accumulate and lithify and if there are several other distinct layers on top of it, then several other distinct processes must have gone on to deposit that material.
For instance, in Northern Ohio there is a layer of glacial till, you can tell it's glacial till because it's silt with erratics(alien rocks), which sits on top of a layer of sandstone, which sits over a layer of shale. This means that numerous different processes occured. Deep sea for the shale, shallow or near water area for the sand, and periodic glaciation for the till. And there you have it natural history.
If you're going to start arguing that all of the deposition processes still in progress today have somehow slowed down to a geologic crawl just as we're getting written history you're going to have to actually back that up with proof.

Furthermore, Humans have been around for more than 40,000 years, we'd have noticed Tyrannosaurs.

I’d like to see evidence that it has. Do you have any?

Here's a bone from a creature known to be millions of years extinct, it still has organic tissue that hasn't been compromised by lithification or bacterial decay.

This clearly says that it is organic material. Organic material = tissue.

No, Organic Tissue is a type of organic material but organic material is a general term, it could mean, and I am assuming in the case of the invertabrate it meant, soup from formerly living tissue that has broken down into chemical components for one reason or anther.

 

[Barbarian]

The Barbarian observes:
Too old to do that. C-14 works only for a few tens of thousands of years. Because the bones came from strata millions of years old, no C-14 testing was done.

Assuming no percolation from groundwater, it would be reported out at maybe >30,000 years old, which is the limit of the method.

Why is it assumed that it was too old?

It came from strata which were dated in tens of millions of years old.

Are you saying that it is impossible that a T Rex could have been living less than 30,000 years ago?

It would be rather surprising, to say the least.

It is interesting that the bone is still considered to be millions of years old in spite of previous assertions by scientists that this type of soft tissue could not actually be preserved for that length of time.

Barbarian asks:
I'd like to see some evidence that it can't. Do you have any?

I’d like to see evidence that it has. Do you have any?

Well, it seems that the material in question is not tissue, but the fact that it's there in strata millions of years old is a pretty good tip-off.

Barbarian observes:
This isn't news, BTW, some soft material was found in some invertebrate fossils, but it too, was no longer tissue, but was replaced by other materials.

Maybe you could explain the demineralization process for us. The article says that Demineralization is the chemical removal of a bone’s minerals in order to obtain organic material that is much easier to work with in a lab environment. This clearly says that it is organic material. Organic material = tissue.

Um, no. Organic material is merely carbon polymers. Tissues are organized groups of different cells, which perform a function.

 

[unred typo]

SyntaxVorlon wrote:

There's the law of superposition for one, if things are collecting on top of one another things that are higher up are younger than things further down. Sedimentary rock strata take a long long long time to accumulate and lithify and if there are several other distinct layers on top of it, then several other distinct processes must have gone on to deposit that material.
For instance, in Northern Ohio there is a layer of glacial till, you can tell it's glacial till because it's silt with erratics(alien rocks), which sits on top of a layer of sandstone, which sits over a layer of shale. This means that numerous different processes occured. Deep sea for the shale, shallow or near water area for the sand, and periodic glaciation for the till. And there you have it natural history.
If you're going to start arguing that all of the deposition processes still in progress today have somehow slowed down to a geologic crawl just as we're getting written history you're going to have to actually back that up with proof.

On the contrary. I would argue that deposition processes today are as they have always been. There are rapid ‘layers upon layers’ burial deposits and there are dust particle deposits and everything in between for 4-6 thousand years of history. Floods move acres of sediment, whether they are world wide or local. A catastrophic event like the River Gihon overflowing 1/3 of the world would make quite an epoch mess of grand canyon proportions and when you add to that a world wide disaster of the ‘fountains of the deep’ being broken up and consider the massive tidal waves and erosion, mud slides and volcanic action those events must have triggered, you have many impressive varied geological features to account for. It was not one simple downpour evenly distributed around the world that you would like to dismiss with a wave of your shovel.

So, are you saying that it is impossible that a T Rex could have been living less than 30,000 years ago?

SyntaxVorlon wrote:

Furthermore, Humans have been around for more than 40,000 years, we'd have noticed Tyrannosaurs.

I think if you will read Job, you would see that we did. Behemoth with his terrible toothy smile is one of the creatures mentioned.

.
SyntaxVorlon wrote:

Here's a bone from a creature known to be millions of years extinct, it still has organic tissue that hasn't been compromised by lithification or bacterial decay.

Would you be willing to guarantee that there have not been a small population of T Rex living in some remote unpopulated area of the world…say, Montana, for the last few thousand years before man arrived there? Your staunch dogmatism rivals that of the evangelical KJ only crowd.


SyntaxVorlon wrote:

No, Organic Tissue is a type of organic material but organic material is a general term, it could mean, and I am assuming in the case of the invertabrate it meant, soup from formerly living tissue that has broken down into chemical components for one reason or anther.

I would think those interested in discoveries that would rock the scientific community would be more than willing to finance the carbon dating of such a fresh looking bone…for the sake of argument, if nothing else. Do I smell ‘slippery slope’ fear?

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian observes:

It came from strata which were dated in tens of millions of years old.

Are these irrefutable dates calculated by the infallible prophets of the TOE?

Barbarian observes:

It would be rather surprising, to say the least.

Theories definitely will have to be adjusted if they actually decide that testing is unavoidable and it turns out to be less than a few centuries old. I love surprises, don’t you? I think we might have to wait until any unpleasant findings can be safely fit into the TOE before the tests will be done, however.


Barbarian observes:

Well, it seems that the material in question is not tissue, but the fact that it's there in strata millions of years old is a pretty good tip-off.

Convenient how those layers come with their dates written in stone like that. Strange how fast they can be changed to another date when there is a new scenario that aligns with the TOE better, and how they are irrefutable when findings might disagree with fundamental TOE doctrines.

Barbarian observes:

Um, no. Organic material is merely carbon polymers. Tissues are organized groups of different cells, which perform a function.

The article says; Schweitzer viewed the tissues under both a light and an electron microscope, and found that the dinosaur tissues were virtually identical to those of the modern birds in form, location and distribution. Demineralization – the chemical removal of a bone’s minerals in order to obtain organic material that is much easier to work with in a lab environment – of the samples revealed that the medullary bone from the ostrich and emu was virtually identical in structure, orientation and even color, with that seen in the T. rex. I work with paints made with polymers. I’d be interested to know under what conditions I could expect a painting to last 68 million years and retain the actual colors and viscosity. This is something of a miracle. I think if they figure out what process causes such astounding preservation properties, it could be patented. Imagine the possibilities. :

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It came from strata which were dated in tens of millions of years old.

Are these irrefutable dates calculated by the infallible prophets of the TOE?

You seem to have some misconceptions about the way rocks are dated. Would you like to learn about it?

Barbarian observes: Quote:
It would be rather surprising, to say the least.

Theories definitely will have to be adjusted if they actually decide that testing is unavoidable and it turns out to be less than a few centuries old.

Indeed. "If"s are fun to play with.

I love surprises, don’t you? I think we might have to wait until any unpleasant findings can be safely fit into the TOE before the tests will be done, however.

I can think of another possible reason tests are being put off...

Barbarian observes:
Well, it seems that the material in question is not tissue, but the fact that it's there in strata millions of years old is a pretty good tip-off.

Convenient how those layers come with their dates written in stone like that. Strange how fast they can be changed to another date when there is a new scenario that aligns with the TOE better, and how they are irrefutable when findings might disagree with fundamental TOE doctrines.

Hmm... which ones in particular? Be careful.

Barbarian observes:
Um, no. Organic material is merely carbon polymers. Tissues are organized groups of different cells, which perform a function.

The article says; Schweitzer viewed the tissues under both a light and an electron microscope, and found that the dinosaur tissues were virtually identical to those of the modern birds in form, location and distribution. Demineralization – the chemical removal of a bone’s minerals in order to obtain organic material that is much easier to work with in a lab environment – of the samples revealed that the medullary bone from the ostrich and emu was virtually identical in structure, orientation and even color, with that seen in the T. rex. I work with paints made with polymers. I’d be interested to know under what conditions I could expect a painting to last 68 million years and retain the actual colors and viscosity. This is something of a miracle. I think if they figure out what process causes such astounding preservation properties, it could be patented. Imagine the possibilities.

Hmmm... no cells? No tissues, then. Someone needs to do a histological examination, and then test the substance to see if it's made of the same materials as tissue.

It would be remarkable for tissue to last that long. My guess is that it's actually some polymers that replaced the tissue. The fact that they don't report cells suggests that's the case. As soon as I had it out of bone, I'd have it in histo lab, making slides.