A New Interpretation of Genesis

[razzelflabben]

told you the age of the earth discussion would come back into the discussion....Does that make me an awesome fortune teller? lol

 

[VirOptimus]

I have....I understand soft tissue can't last 65+ MY's and the C14 in coal should have decayed.

...there seems to be something wrong with your old earth ages.

http://m.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

 

[razzelflabben]

Then we agree...that light could have illuminated a rotating sphere that use to be void and formless.

I have no idea what your point is, we are talking about Gen. and how it is to be interpreted. Not....I don't know, yes, according to Gen. there was light before there was sun, moon and stars, not exactly earth shattering and not exactly something that would tell us what we are looking into about how Gen. should be interpreted. Maybe you want to take us off topic and that is what is confusing me about your posts.....

 

[throughfiierytrial]

I hold that where the Gen. account is NOT a scientific treatise, and is a well crafted polemic, that does not mean that it is wrong about origins.

There are two important issues here, 1. understanding what the text intends for us to know, aka polemic and 2. understanding what it does say about creation...for example, we don't have a measure for time before the sun, moon and stars according to the account. Therefore the length of day is not specified before the creation of the sun, moon and stars.

However, I quoted from the Psalms and Hebrews as well...do you hold they too are a polemic?
Hebrews 11 speaks all about the requirement of faith...not known earthly building blocks. More later...I'm on the run.

 

[-57]

http://m.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

Your link has already been refuted:
The "Iron Based" concept has been refuted.

Creation Research Quarterly Volume 51 Spring 2015 number 4

Analysis of Preservation Motifs

Schweitzer et al. (2013a, 2013b) have proposed numerous possible explana- tions for the survival of recovered colla- gen and other soft tissue materials found in T. rex and B. canadensis including for example molecular sheltering, hydro- phobic enrichment, iron-protein block- ing, cross-linking, etc. Undoubtedly all if not most of the proposals have some merit. However, in our view, the matter of these mechanisms explaining deep time survival has not been adequately supported either empirically or by literature review. We begin by merely pointing out that the Fenton chemistry hypothesis supported by the ostrich tis- sue preservation experiment over 2 years, using hemoglobin as a preservative is simply inadequate to extrapolate and infer stabilization over 68 million years. It is unknown if environmental factors like high-low temperature cycling or dehydration might radically alter the test specimens appearance. Is a tissue specimen soaked in blood kept in a laboratory an adequate experiment to model the environmental weathering of postmortem tissue? In this vein, it is again trivially pointed out that the visual inspection method of tissue analysis is woefully inadequate to draw any conclusions concerning a molecular mechanism of stabilization. The group has access to mass spectra evaluation which could have identified footprints of hydroxyl radical presence. As we shall see, a more careful analysis of the mass spectral data related to the particular peptides and sequences shows that some doubt, if not complete rejection, of several preservation motifs is war- ranted. The particular motif that intro- duces more problems than it purportedly solves concerns Fenton chemistry iron fixation of the peptides.

The proposal is essentially hydroxyl free-radical infiltration into soft tissue. The free radicals are generated by iron- biominerals with which the tissue is combined. Success of this mechanism depends upon deployment of the free radicals through an aqueous medium in contact with the polypeptide. We hold that “chemical fingerprints” of this activity should be registered upon the peptides themselves. For example, hydrolytically sensitive amino acids (asparagine, glutamine) should have degraded and free-radical sensitive com- pounds (tyrosine) should have reacted. These observations may seem like an unnecessary if not insignificant detail to observe but recall that the specimens have been in the ground for some 68 million years. If a chemical mechanism (Fenton chemistry or iron mediated hy-droxyl radical fixation) is to be believed, its entire consequent (fugitive water and hydroxyl radicals dosing the peptide remnants) ought to have occurred. Be- low we set out upon an inspection of two general ideas concerning the presence of water and hydroxyl free radicals and their potential signature upon peptide chemistry.

 

[-57]

I have no idea what your point is, we are talking about Gen. and how it is to be interpreted. Not....I don't know, yes, according to Gen. there was light before there was sun, moon and stars, not exactly earth shattering and not exactly something that would tell us what we are looking into about how Gen. should be interpreted. Maybe you want to take us off topic and that is what is confusing me about your posts.....

Sure, Genesis can be use to defend God and destroy other "gods"...but it's also literal, historical history.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

http://m.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

or the sciences and their measuring apparatuses...seems to me they have been proven wrong before...or have we now "arrived"??

 

[-57]

told you the age of the earth discussion would come back into the discussion....Does that make me an awesome fortune teller? lol

Just pulling the thread...which leads the way. (unless a moderator pins it)

 

[VirOptimus]

Your link has already been refuted:
The "Iron Based" concept has been refuted.

Creation Research Quarterly Volume 51 Spring 2015 number 4

Analysis of Preservation Motifs

Schweitzer et al. (2013a, 2013b) have proposed numerous possible explana- tions for the survival of recovered colla- gen and other soft tissue materials found in T. rex and B. canadensis including for example molecular sheltering, hydro- phobic enrichment, iron-protein block- ing, cross-linking, etc. Undoubtedly all if not most of the proposals have some merit. However, in our view, the matter of these mechanisms explaining deep time survival has not been adequately supported either empirically or by literature review. We begin by merely pointing out that the Fenton chemistry hypothesis supported by the ostrich tis- sue preservation experiment over 2 years, using hemoglobin as a preservative is simply inadequate to extrapolate and infer stabilization over 68 million years. It is unknown if environmental factors like high-low temperature cycling or dehydration might radically alter the test specimens appearance. Is a tissue specimen soaked in blood kept in a laboratory an adequate experiment to model the environmental weathering of postmortem tissue? In this vein, it is again trivially pointed out that the visual inspection method of tissue analysis is woefully inadequate to draw any conclusions concerning a molecular mechanism of stabilization. The group has access to mass spectra evaluation which could have identified footprints of hydroxyl radical presence. As we shall see, a more careful analysis of the mass spectral data related to the particular peptides and sequences shows that some doubt, if not complete rejection, of several preservation motifs is war- ranted. The particular motif that intro- duces more problems than it purportedly solves concerns Fenton chemistry iron fixation of the peptides.

The proposal is essentially hydroxyl free-radical infiltration into soft tissue. The free radicals are generated by iron- biominerals with which the tissue is combined. Success of this mechanism depends upon deployment of the free radicals through an aqueous medium in contact with the polypeptide. We hold that “chemical fingerprints” of this activity should be registered upon the peptides themselves. For example, hydrolytically sensitive amino acids (asparagine, glutamine) should have degraded and free-radical sensitive com- pounds (tyrosine) should have reacted. These observations may seem like an unnecessary if not insignificant detail to observe but recall that the specimens have been in the ground for some 68 million years. If a chemical mechanism (Fenton chemistry or iron mediated hy-droxyl radical fixation) is to be believed, its entire consequent (fugitive water and hydroxyl radicals dosing the peptide remnants) ought to have occurred. Be- low we set out upon an inspection of two general ideas concerning the presence of water and hydroxyl free radicals and their potential signature upon peptide chemistry.

"Creation research quarterly"? Hahaha, no.

 

[-57]

or the sciences and their measuring apparatuses...seems to me they have been proven wrong before...or have we now "arrived"??

Curious...."arrived" at what?

 

[-57]

"Creation research quarterly"? Hahaha, no.

Soooooooooo, you think you have debunked the iron issue by mocking the "Creation research quarterly"?

....and you call that science? Get real pal.

 

[razzelflabben]

However, I quoted from the Psalms and Hebrews as well...do you hold they too are a polemic?
Hebrews 11 speaks all about the requirement of faith...not known earthly building blocks. More later...I'm on the run.

Honestly, my head is spinning trying to figure out what you don't agree with that I have said. In fact, I clearly stated that where Gen. is a polemic it does not mean that the creation account is not accurate, or accurate to a point, meaning that there are things left out that a scientific treatise would include. Thus, we can know the mechanism, while understanding that the mechanism isn't the intended point of the passage....

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Was there not a source of light before the sun?

And isn't there also a clue in the use of the word "day"...
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Note also that verse 2 doesn't say, "Now the earth was formless and empty for millions of years, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Neither is there any mention or hint of vast ages when our Lord, the maker of all things, was here on earth. If there was any doubt about Jewish history at the time, isn't it likely that someone would have been curious enough to ask Him about such things while they had the opportunity, especially after His resurrection, when they knew for certain that He was who He claimed to be?

 

[VirOptimus]

Soooooooooo, you think you have debunked the iron issue by mocking the "Creation research quarterly"?

....and you call that science? Get real pal.

"Creation research quarterly" is not a reputable source.

 

[razzelflabben]

Sure, Genesis can be use to defend God and destroy other "gods"...but it's also literal, historical history.

huh? Again, maybe your issue is with someone else....cause I never said or suggested that it isn't history or literal, just that it isn't intended to be a scientific treatise.

 

[-57]

And isn't there also a clue in the use of the word "day"...
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Note also that verse 2 doesn't say, "Now the earth was formless and empty for millions of years, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Neither is there any mention or hint of vast ages when our Lord, the maker of all things, was here on earth. If there was any doubt about Jewish history at the time, isn't it likely that someone would have been curious enough to ask Him about such things while they had the opportunity, especially after His resurrection, when they knew for certain that He was who He claimed to be?

I agree.
...as to the Jewish interpretation of scripture, they often got it wrong. For example many of them 2,000 years ago misssed who Jesus Christ was. Despite Isaiah 53.

 

[razzelflabben]

And isn't there also a clue in the use of the word "day"...
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Note also that verse 2 doesn't say, "Now the earth was formless and empty for millions of years, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Neither is there any mention or hint of vast ages when our Lord, the maker of all things, was here on earth. If there was any doubt about Jewish history at the time, isn't it likely that someone would have been curious enough to ask Him about such things while they had the opportunity, especially after His resurrection, when they knew for certain that He was who He claimed to be?

Without it specifying how long, we cannot know, which is part of the point....we dare not read into scripture what is not there and/or not supported with the totality of scripture.

 

[-57]

"Creation research quarterly" is not a reputable source.

Say's who? You?

...did you even read my post? Tell me where it's wrong...or retract you replies.

 

[-57]

huh? Again, maybe your issue is with someone else....cause I never said or suggested that it isn't history or literal, just that it isn't intended to be a scientific treatise.

If I misread you, then I apologize.

 

[razzelflabben]

If I misread you, then I apologize.

If you have an issue, I would love to be able to understand, but so far it just sounds like you either want to argue for argument sake or your confusing me with another poster....either way, communication is more important than being right or wrong in my opinion.