• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Church Fathers and Genesis

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
Buck72 said:
Hey Guys, ever notice when someone is reading scripture in the Bible, they ALWAYS take it literally?
Not necessarily, as the example you give in your post could probably indicate....

Literal is the de facto translation, just like every non-fiction book you read.
You can make a decent argument for this position, though one should be careful to consider the context and should attempt to resolve apparent conflicts by going back to the original language text to assist in resolving potential conflicts....

The great difference between the Bible and every other book on the planet is that the Bible is an integrated message system of 66 books, 44 authors written over 3,000-ish years and yet retains an incredible standard of integrity, self-proving its extra-terrestrial origin. It writes history in advance with absolute meticulous precision, many times thousands of years beforehand.
Many of the points you make here are quite good, Buck....

Take a walk through Daniel 9 sometime. The Rabbi's of the time took the prophecy that was given to Daniel about the Messiah literally. It was of course, later taken allegorically which is how the Pharisees MISSED the first coming of Messiah completely:
The meaning(s) of Daniel 9 are still argued about today. The most nearly literal translation would have had the Messiah coming hundreds of years before he actually did appear, though a longer period of time for each seven would correlate fairly accurately with history. A more literal prophesy in Daniel regarding the coming of the Messiah would be the second chapter of Daniel....


Aside from this, lest I be guilty of "off-topic" posts; may I present that the founding "fathers" all believed in a literal six-yom Genesis Creation.
As far as I know, you are correct on this point, though it should probably be noted that there was some disagreement as to how long the yoms were. Among the minority who expressed an opinion that has been preserved, there appears to have been a split between those who thought each yom was 24 hours, was 1000 years, was an indefinite period of time, or was not capable of being measured accurately. Most of the early church leaders apparently did not think it an important enough issue to address in a writing that has been preserved.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
The idea of dinosaur hemoglobin comes from this paper: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=21042

The Abstract reads:
"Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues."

Now, the Abstract makes clear that we are dealing with fragments of the protein.

Now, how can these fragments be preserved for millions of years? Here's the answer in the paper, but apparently the creationist sites never mentioned it:

"Most erythrocytes undergo hemolysis when the organism dies. Hemoglobin is released with a resultant red discoloration of surrounding bony tissues (22). However, under the anoxic conditions that prevail deep in the endosteal tissues of massive animals (28), hemoglobin molecules may be protected from early stages of oxidative degradation. The proteins may then become complexed with apatite, the mineral phase of bone matrix. This association may well be a prerequisite for the survival of biomolecular compounds across geological time (29, 30). Protein and other organic compounds are protected from degradation when stabilized by interaction with mineral crystal aggregates (31). In addition, by adsorbing to a stabilizing mineral matrix, biomolecules are effectively isolated from water, thereby retarding hydrolytic damage (32)."

See? Proteins break down in high oxygen conditions. But oxygen is lacking in the canals in bones of very large animals. Then they are further protected by interacting with the mineral crystals. Far from indicating a young age for the dinos, they indicate nothing more than normal chemistry.

Now, let's look at this particular specimen:

" A near-complete specimen of the Late Cretaceous dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex [Museum of Rockies (MOR) 555] was collected by MOR from the Hell Creek formation (67–65 million years ago) of eastern Montana in 1990. The completeness and articulation of the skeleton indicated that burial was rapid enough to forestall damage by scavenging and weathering but not rapid enough to prevent some minimal displacement. The specimen was surrounded by a consolidated white sandstone, buried under 1–1.5 m of stream channel sediments that contained abundant coalified plant material. The specimen was collected with 0.5–0.6 m of sediment in place between the unexposed hind limb used in this study and the pelvis, which had been exposed before collection. Preliminary examination of trabecular bone elements of the specimen revealed little or no evidence of internal permineralization or replacement. This relatively unaltered state may be due to minimal exposure to water. Dehydration would favor preservation of endogenous biomolecules, including hemoglobin, so an attempt was made to detect their presence in the tissues of MOR 555."

Special conditions of preservation here.

Even so, looking at the Abstract, we can see that the preservation was not enough to give sufficient quantities for an amino acid analysis. Most hemoglobin in the bone was indeed completely degraded. The presence was inferred through indirect means, not direct observation. BTW, these are the types of observations -- indirect -- that creationists say are not valid in other contexts. The irony is apparent.

Now, is the hemoglobin intact? NO!
"The proton NMR spectrum of the dinosaur extracts (Fig. 2) contains peaks upfield and downfield from the standard 0- to 10-ppm window characteristic of the resonances of protons in proteins and other organic molecules. Four broad resonances at 25.0, 29.0, 45.0, and 72.0 ppm, as well as three other peaks at −9.0, −20.0, and −30.0 ppm indicate the presence of a paramagnetic atom, such as those seen in various metalloproteins (44, 45). The spectrum is consistent with degraded heme proteins in the met (Fe3+) state (6, 45).

Notice that word "degraded".

"Significant levels of D-enantiomers of individual amino acids (39) suggest that the source proteins are ancient."

What isomer are amino acids in living animals? L-amino acids. Not D. What we have here is amino acids that have been racemized over a long period of time. Longer than 6,000 years.

"
"None of the analytical results obtained was completely identical to those noted experimentally or in the literature for modern hemoglobins. However, ancient molecules typically show variations in analytical profiles from their purified modern counterparts because of chemical modifications during degradation (49, 25). Geochemical interactions with biomolecules preserved in fossil bone over millions of years are to be expected, and the presence of additional, nonhemoglobin signals detected by the various physical methods is not unexpected given the highly degraded and diagenetically altered biological compounds in the bone."

Any claim that "hemoglobin" was isolated is false witness. What we have are the degredation products of hemoglobin, not the molecule itself.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Buck72 said:
No, not kidding. The half-life of the isotope is not the issue; its the uniformitarian assumption that the C14 has been predictably disseminated equally throughout "billions" of years of history that I find fallible.
Since C14 is only used to date for time less than 50,000 years, this is wrong.

It explains the paltry conclusion of how living things have been carbon dated as hundreds to thousands of years old!
If you look at the actual examples, the explanation is that the organism is not incorporating carbon from the atmosphere or from living plants, but from calcium carbonate to make shells. All the examples are of shelled organisms. This carbon has been around a long time before the animal lived. So, it is invalid to use C14 to date shelled organisms.

One day, we will all know for sure. But today, we place our bets...I put my money on God's word because first of all, I believe it absolutely,
Bad bet. Because you are not betting on God, but on you. We are not talking "God's word", but on a fallible human interpretation of the text of the Bible. You are setting yourself up to tell God what to do. Not a good bet at all.

Since evolution "cannot be proven, only disproven", I'm reaching for the Bible as my source of security and well being.
That's a little naive. Also, remember that it also applies to creationism. Creationism can be, and has, been disproven. The evidence God left us in His Creation show this particular human interpretation of the Bible to be wrong. To cling to it in the face of what God tells you is a bad bet.

Evolution is as proven as round earth or gravity. The evidence is so overwhelming that it is perverse not to regard it as (provisionally) true. OTOH, creationism has been shown to be completely false. God didn't create that way.

Given that Christ Himself quoted Genesis numerous times in the Gospels (each time with a literal viewpoint)
Look at the verses again. Jesus doesn't use them as literal history, but for the theology.

I know I'm going to cash in the 'ol faith gamble come the end of the Age.
It's your immortal funeral. No thank you. I don't want to commit spiritual suicide. I wish you well and hope that God is merciful to you.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Ark Guy said:
The best the evolutionist can do is make the claim that homology is the anticipated and expected consequence of evolution. Homology is not evidence of evolution.
Thank you for contradicting yourself within two sentences, and destroying your whole argument in the post at the same time!

Ark Guy, do you have any idea how deductive reasoning works? You just outlined it but failed to understand it.

1. Assume the statement is true. Common ancestry in this case.
2. Make deductions from the statement. In this case the deduction is that there will be homologies. The deduction is "the anticipated and expected consequence" of your sentence.
3. Look for the deduction. If you find it then you have evidence the statement is true. If you find the opposite you have evidence the statement is false.

So, since you admit to homologies and that homologies are a deduction from evolution, you have just proved that homologies are evidence of evolution.

Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Buck72 said:
Hey Guys, ever notice when someone is reading scripture in the Bible, they ALWAYS take it literally?
Do you take the Song of Solomon literally?

How do you decide Luke 2:1 is not literal? I apply the same criteria I apply to Luke 2:1 to conclude that Genesis 1-8 is not literal. Why do you have a different criteria for Luke 2:1 than you do for Genesis 1-8?

It writes history in advance with absolute meticulous precision, many times thousands of years beforehand.

Take a walk through Daniel 9 sometime.
I would be careful about using "prophecy" to prove the Bible. First, many of the prophecies did not come true. There is one that Tyre will be destroyed. It wasn't. Second, it was not considered dishonest at the time to take an event and have a character "prophecy" it. This is what happens in Luke 19:43-44. Luke was written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Luke is taking the opportunity to castigate his fellow Jews for rejecting Jesus by having Jesus prophecy the destruction. To us in our day and time, this is dishonest. To Luke it wasn't. Different times, different standards. You are violating one of the rules of interpretation -- taking the text out of the times in which it was written.
http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/b11.html

Aside from this, lest I be guilty of "off-topic" posts; may I present that the founding "fathers" all believed in a literal six-yom Genesis Creation. The number seven throughout scripture is the number of COMPLETION, whereby God rested on the seventh day and said: "It is good". Thus, the Creation was complete...just like it says.
1. The Church Fathers also believed a literal Bible to give a flat earth, too. Why aren't you insisting that the earth is flat based on their authority? It is inconsistent to insist on their authority on a literal Genesis but deny their authority on the shape of the earth.
2. You have pointed out one textual reason that Genesis 1 is not literal: it is based on numerology. Have you noticed that there are two, and exactly two, major creation events per day? That's very contrived. So is splitting the 6 day period up into 2 three day periods. What you have is Genesis 1 based on the numbers 2, 3, 6, and 7. The important numbers in numerology.

Genesis was written as a historical summary to the things that occured in the Beginning.
I disagree. Genesis 1 was written to reassure the Hebrews at a time when their faith was under severe attack by the Babylonian religion and there was a lot of pressure to abandon Judaism. Genesis 2 was written 1) to explain how and why people are cut off from God and 2) provide some naive explanations of why snakes don't have legs, people fear snakes, farming is so hard, and childbirth is painful. Neither was ever meant, by the authors, to be history. They were meant to be theology and had deep theological meaning to the worshipping community. Meaning which is lost by forcing a literal interpretation on them.

Oh, the dating of rocks is inconlusive and hindered by Chuck Lyell's fictional "geologic column".
It's not Lyell's column. It is Sedgwick and Burnett's column. Both were ministers and both were creationists. Nor is it fictitious. I suggest some reading on the subject.

Also Carbon dating assumes uniformitarian dissemination of equal parts of C14 in all plant/animal tissues throughout history, notwithstanding changes in ozone, atmospherical events, disruptions, or irregularities. Bottom Line: Carbon Dating is at best a "guess", NOT a science.
C14 is calibrated to known historical events and thus compensates for all of those.
http://www.c14dating.com/
2. http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm
3. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html
4. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

21. Kitagawa, H., and J. van der Plicht. 1999, Atmospheric radiocarbon fluctuations to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late glacial fluctuations and cosmogenic isotope production, Science, 279:1187-90.
4. S Nemecek, Who were the first Americans? Scientific American 283: 80-87, Sept. 2000. Also good discussion of carbon-14 dating and corrections.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.