So confused on the Sabbath...

[JAL]

The research for this discovery was done at Montana State University by Mary Schweitzer in a lab supervise by famous paleontologist ‘Dinosaur’ Jack Horner. The following test were done. And connective tissue was still flexable.

• The tissue was coloured reddish brown, the colour of hemoglobin, as was liquid extracted from the dinosaur tissue.
• Hemoglobin contains heme units. Chemical signatures unique to heme were found in the specimens when certain wavelengths of laser light were applied.
• Because it contains iron, heme reacts to magnetic fields differently from other proteins—extracts from this specimen reacted in the same way as modem heme compounds.
• To ensure that the samples had not been contaminated with certain bacteria which have heme (but never the protein hemoglobin), extracts of the dinosaur fossil were injected over several weeks into rats. If there was even a minute amount of hemoglobin present in the T. Rex sample, the rats’ immune system should build up detectable antibodies against this compound. This is exactly what happened in carefully controlled experiments.

You can check the article in scientfic journals out also.

Schweitzer, M.H., Johnson, C., Zocco, T.G., Horner, J.H., Starkey, J.R., 1997C Preservation of biomolecules in cancellous bone of Tyrannosaurus rex, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Volume 17, No. 2, June 19. 349-359

Schweitzer, Mary Higby, John R. Horner 1999 Intrasvascular microstructures in trabecular bone tissues of Tyrannosaurus rex, Annales de Paléontologie Volume 85, Issue 3, July-September , pg.179-192.

Schweitzer, Mary H., Mark Marshall, Darlene Barnard, Scott Bohle, Keith Carron, Ernst V. Arnold, Jean R. Starkey 1997B Blood from a Stone, Dinofest International 101-104

Schweitzer, Mary H., Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey 1997A Heme compounds in dinosaur Trabecular bone Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 6291-6296, June

Schweitzer, M. and T. Staedter,1997 The Real Jurassic Park, Earth,
June pp. 55-57.

You yourself provided a link to a discussion debating the creationist extrapolation of this evidence. Clearly, this is insufficient evidence to overturn a legion of evidences against a young earth (most of which I haven't even mentioned yet). Furthermore the whole approach here is, as previously stated, non-scientific, which can be redemonstrated as follows. A real scientific effort would try to reconcile ALL the data, not just cherry-pick his desired conclusion. In this case, the creationist supposedly provides evidence of a young earth (hemoglobin found in dinosaur bones). But if all dinosaur bones are really that young, why don't we find hemoglobin in MANY dinosaur bones? Why is this the only example? Why aren't the creationists adressing that issue? Because they have no interest in the facts. All they want to do is cherry-pick their conclusion and, having found the fruit on the tree, they couldn't care less that their "findings" raise more questions than answered and create more problems than solved. That's not real science.

 

[JAL]

Well, it appears that the "hemoglobin" was debunked a long time ago, in an article which concluded that hemoglobin didn't need to be present to produce the rat's immune response: "Very few amino acids in side chains attached to a heme produced the immunological response observed [in the rats], intact hemoglobin is not present or necessary. How do we know this? Because 1) prior research has independently established that small peptides complexed to heme, are immunogenic, 2) an immune response to the bone extracts in rats was observed, 3) the laboratory results which would have detected hemoglobin did not do so, but did produce results consistent with heme. "

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

Unsurprisingly, the article pointed out several more examples of the intellectual dishonesty so characteristic of creationist "scientists". Something tells me that you already knew that this argument had long ago been debunked. Does your raising a defeated argument make you another example of intellectual dishonesty? I'm wondering. I've seen many partipants of this forum re-raise arguments that they KNEW were debunked (some of them I had debunked myself). I don't stoop to such cheap tactics.

 

[Jerrysch]

[/b]

Are you suggesting that the scriptures give us EVERY detail of Job's, Abraham's, Issac's, and Jacob's life?

No I am not, I am suggesting that if the Sabbath was a "creation ordinance" there should have been some evedence that someone kept it prior to the giveing to the Exodus generation. Some evidence, but there is none. So for us to conclude some 7000 years later that somehow these laws given by way of Moses were retroactive to the seventh day is really a streach in imagination. The initial instruction regarding keeping the Sabbath was given to ethnic Israel, it was not given to anyone else. It was one of 613 provisions in the Mosiac Law given to ethnic Israel, and it is quite interesting that it is but 1 of 613, some how the other 612 are never brought up. Oh yes, the first 10 are often remembered but how about the 66th? What about the 335? If the Sabbath is binding for all for all time how about these? Who can pick and choose which laws he will obey, why so much focus on this one while the other 612 are forgotten? And of course, the next question is how is the Sabbath kept by those who demand that it be kept? Is it kept in accordancwe with Scripture or is it kept by going to church? And most interestingly, what does this group do with those of its membership who refuse to keep the Sabbath? Do they do what the Scriptures require for those who break the Sabbath? Or do we just have lip service? I mean if a person wants to be under the Sabbath laws, then there are consequences for that law being broken, do they inforce that Biblical mandate? I'll be interested in an answer to this.

 

[Jerrysch]

One issue which I think has escaped this discussion. For those who suggest that we must keep the Sabbath I have a few questions which need to be answered for me to continue in this discussion.
Firstly what are the results of keeping the Sabbath, that is does one need to keep it to be Saved? That is can a person be considered righteous in the eyes of a Holy God if he does not keep the Sabath?

Secoundly will a redeemed sinner loose his eternal life if he does not continue to keep the Sabbath? And if so, how does he then again regain his eternal life.

 

[Sleaker]

What difference does it make if I observe the Jewish Sabbath as seen in the Old Testament or Not?

The question is still waiting to be answered....

 

[sunlover1]

So, my Sabbath question. Do we keep the Sabbath, do we not keep the Sabbath? Saturday is the Sabbath. The Lord's Day/Resurrection Day/Sunday/whatever-you-deem-it is when services are held at most churches around here. Thus, because of the nature of taking time to go to church as well as observing the Sabbath, that would leave Sunday afternoon and evening for work to be done.

My question may seem petty because of the root matter: I am in high school and I have a lot of homework most of the time. If I get a huge load of homework on a weekend and I observe the Sabbath and go to church on Sunday morning, that only leaves Sunday afternoon and evening for my homework to be done. I mean, I'm willing to make the sacrifice if that's how it is; I suppose I can just try to get more done during the week. But is that how it is? Seems to be the question of the age.

I'm so confused...

God bless you,

Lissa

Do you think you have the ability to 'keep' the Sabbath? This man didn't.

Numbers 15:32-35 32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. 33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. 34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. 35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.


The law was given to show us that we were helpless without God, that we just couldnt measure up.

(Hebrews 4 is excellent reading about this topic.)


As far as I know, Sabbath means rest, and...

Mark 2:27-28 27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

I have studied this topic over and again myself 'just to be sure' (legalism). I have come to the conclusion that Jesus is my Sabbath, and I am not going to put myself under law, or Christ would have died in vain.

Study is good, prayer is even better. The Word(logos) of God and the Word (rhema) of God.
These are all you need to find your answer.

Hope that helps you.
sunlover

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

One issue which I think has escaped this discussion. For those who suggest that we must keep the Sabbath I have a few questions which need to be answered for me to continue in this discussion.

Ok great, i love to answer Shabbat questions!!!

Firstly what are the results of keeping the Sabbath, that is does one need to keep it to be Saved?

Noway Jerrysch, a person salvation has never depended on keeping any commandment, that is the Shabbat that falls under the category of {Huke} which means a commandment that reason cannot explain, nor anyother...

That is can a person be considered righteous in the eyes of a Holy God if he does not keep the Sabath?

Ofcourse he can, actually if you don't want to form part of the nation of Israel you are under no obligation to keep the Shabbat since the Shabbat was given only and exclusively to Israel and no other nation...

Exodus 31:
13Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.


14Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.


15Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.


16Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.


In any case i do believe we should all form part of the nation of Israel, we should be grafted in the nautral olive as Paul says.. Remember that gentiles are no longer gentiles when they come to Yeshua, and neither are they supposed to be strangers any longer to the covenants and promises of our nation... Yet there are so many believers that want nothing to do with Israel.. It's a shame, if only christians understood the beauty of the Shabbat, how we celebrate dance and feast on that day.. I dare say that Shabbat is way more beautyful then Christmass.. Yet that is not our only celebration, we have many throughout the year that are equally as fun and even funner.. Forming part of our nation is a beautyful experience... So now, back to the question, can someone be found holy before the eyes of a holy God if he does not keep the Shabbat??? Yes, ofcourse, actually it's less of an issue if one does not keep the Shabbat yet remains extremly faithful to God in other areas, while another does keep it yet he is constantly commiting murder with his tongue, assasinating himself and others around him.. I believe mocking, slanders and criticisizm is a much bigger issue then failing to keep the Shabbat celebration!!!!

Secoundly will a redeemed sinner loose his eternal life if he does not continue to keep the Sabbath? And if so, how does he then again regain his eternal life.

No he does not... Now i don't see a redeemed sinner ever stop observing the Shabbat, namely because of what a beautyful celebration it is unto the Lord.. There is no salvific import placed in a commandment, knowing that no matter what we are always falling short one way or another, so keeping or not keeping has nothing to do with our salvation... Further, believers cannot glory on how good they really are at commandment keeping and exalt themselves over other believers..

 

[kw5kw]

While not taking this completley out of context, shall we look at just one verse that Jesus said: "And He said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: "



Just as we don't stone the youngsters who are disobedient to their parents, we don't stone anyone who travels more than one thousand paces to worship the Lord on Sunday.


Jesus made it plain that we could pull the bull out of the pit, for if we didn't the bull would die. Some things on the Sabbath are justifable and homework my dear, is justifable on a Sunday.

 

[ThreeAM]

Well, it appears that the "hemoglobin" was debunked a long time ago, in an article which concluded that hemoglobin didn't need to be present to produce the rat's immune response: "Very few amino acids in side chains attached to a heme produced the immunological response observed [in the rats], intact hemoglobin is not present or necessary. How do we know this? Because 1) prior research has independently established that small peptides complexed to heme, are immunogenic, 2) an immune response to the bone extracts in rats was observed, 3) the laboratory results which would have detected hemoglobin did not do so, but did produce results consistent with heme. "

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

Unsurprisingly, the article pointed out several more examples of the intellectual dishonesty so characteristic of creationist "scientists". Something tells me that you already knew that this argument had long ago been debunked. Does your raising a defeated argument make you another example of intellectual dishonesty? I'm wondering. I've seen many partipants of this forum re-raise arguments that they KNEW were debunked (some of them I had debunked myself). I don't stoop to such cheap tactics.

Not so fast here, I read the bunk on talksorigin. I have had courses in immunology in undergraduate and graduate and medical school. The stuff on talksorgin is bunk. The immune response is triggered by the sequence of amino acids or peptides that form protiens[polypeptides]. Hemeoglobin contains Heme and globin[protien/polypeptides]. Protiens [polypeptides] are long chains of amino acids or peptides. It is beyound the pale to imagine that a short sequence of 2-4 amino acids could trigger an immune response in rats. That is only one to three amide {peptide} bonds.

Yes Dr Schwiezter did the research that found the Heme . I doubt she has ever even had a course in immunology her assumption about 2-4 chain amino acids triggering a immune response does not jive with the current literature. There is no doubt that she has discovered heme because the test she ran show heme. Microscopicaly she has red heme in the shape of Red Blood Cells. And they do have a positive immune response in rats which prove the presents of long er chain amino acids [polypeptides, protiens, globin] until PROVEN otherwise.

It is also HIGHLY doubtful that Heme or even short chain amino acids or peptides could last for 65million years.

What you are saying is basicaly part of the globin protien molecule remained for 65 million years. DNA doesn't even last that long.

Needless to say their are plenty of reasons to believe in a new earth not the least being that God said he made the world in six days and rested on the 7th. But I'm not going to clutter up this thread anymore with talk of Dinos. You believe in an old earth based on what you see as evidence and I'll believe in a new earth based on what I see as evidence and on the strongest evidence of all...the word of God.

 

[ThreeAM]

One issue which I think has escaped this discussion. For those who suggest that we must keep the Sabbath I have a few questions which need to be answered for me to continue in this discussion.
Firstly what are the results of keeping the Sabbath, that is does one need to keep it to be Saved? That is can a person be considered righteous in the eyes of a Holy God if he does not keep the Sabath?

Secoundly will a redeemed sinner loose his eternal life if he does not continue to keep the Sabbath? And if so, how does he then again regain his eternal life.

If you aren't truelly covinced that it is God's will that you keep the Sabbath then God winks at your inquity in times of ignorance.

If you answer this question you will know the answer to your question.

If you knew that it was against the will of God that you be a thief yet you continue to steal because you you did not care what God wants. I'm talking about a concious rebellion against God's will. Would you be saved?

Those who love God will be saved. God says "if you love me keep my commandments." Obedience is a sign of our love for God. If we don't love Him we won't obey Him either.

 

[ThreeAM]

No I am not, I am suggesting that if the Sabbath was a "creation ordinance" there should have been some evedence that someone kept it prior to the giveing to the Exodus generation. Some evidence, but there is none. So for us to conclude some 7000 years later that somehow these laws given by way of Moses were retroactive to the seventh day is really a streach in imagination. The initial instruction regarding keeping the Sabbath was given to ethnic Israel, it was not given to anyone else. It was one of 613 provisions in the Mosiac Law given to ethnic Israel, and it is quite interesting that it is but 1 of 613, some how the other 612 are never brought up. Oh yes, the first 10 are often remembered but how about the 66th? What about the 335? If the Sabbath is binding for all for all time how about these? Who can pick and choose which laws he will obey, why so much focus on this one while the other 612 are forgotten? And of course, the next question is how is the Sabbath kept by those who demand that it be kept? Is it kept in accordancwe with Scripture or is it kept by going to church? And most interestingly, what does this group do with those of its membership who refuse to keep the Sabbath? Do they do what the Scriptures require for those who break the Sabbath? Or do we just have lip service? I mean if a person wants to be under the Sabbath laws, then there are consequences for that law being broken, do they inforce that Biblical mandate? I'll be interested in an answer to this.

How many laws were written on stone by the finger of God? How many laws were put in the ark seperate from the laws that were transcribed in a book by Moses. God made a differentiation between the Decalog and the laws which Moses transcribe in a book...so do I.

 

[JAL]

Not so fast here, I read the bunk on talksorigin. I have had courses in immunology in undergraduate and graduate and medical school. The stuff on talksorgin is bunk. The immune response is triggered by the sequence of amino acids or peptides that form protiens[polypeptides]. Hemeoglobin contains Heme and globin[protien/polypeptides]. Protiens [polypeptides] are long chains of amino acids or peptides. It is beyound the pale to imagine that a short sequence of 2-4 amino acids could trigger an immune response in rats. That is only one to three amide {peptide} bonds.

Yes Dr Schwiezter did the research that found the Heme . I doubt she has ever even had a course in immunology her assumption about 2-4 chain amino acids triggering a immune response does not jive with the current literature. There is no doubt that she has discovered heme because the test she ran show heme. Microscopicaly she has red heme in the shape of Red Blood Cells. And they do have a positive immune response in rats which prove the presents of long er chain amino acids [polypeptides, protiens, globin] until PROVEN otherwise.

It is also HIGHLY doubtful that Heme or even short chain amino acids or peptides could last for 65million years.

What you are saying is basicaly part of the globin protien molecule remained for 65 million years. DNA doesn't even last that long.

Another talkorigins article mentioned a nonradiometric dating method used to verify the antiquity of those dinosaur bones.

Also, I am still wondering how you explain why we have only one isolated case of supposed hemoglobin. Why not more such cases?

 

[ThreeAM]

Another talkorigins article mentioned a nonradiometric dating method used to verify the antiquity of those dinosaur bones.

Also, I am still wondering how you explain why we have only one isolated case of supposed hemoglobin. Why not more such cases?

And which of those methods do you consider more reliable than the word of God and why do you feel that way?

Well since I think Dinos perished in the flood then they have been dead for thousands of years. Its surprising that they have found heme and peptides at all. Most Dino bone are mineralized but a few were not in a situation to become minerialized. Some of the nomineralized bones were found in Alaska in 1990 they had be know of for years but not recognized them as dino bones because they appear much newer than mineralized bones. They have been verified as Dino bones and at least one bone from a T Rex had Hemeoglobin. The bone still had trabecular structure.

Since you seem to belive in evolution can you show me one case of a species begating another species? I mean cows and horses graze together have you ever seen a corse or a how???

 

[JAL]

And which of those methods do you consider more reliable than the word of God and why do you feel that way?

Well since I think Dinos perished in the flood then they have been dead for thousands of years. Its surprising that they have found heme and peptides at all. Most Dino bone are mineralized but a few were not in a situation to become minerialized. Some of the nomineralized bones were found in Alaska in 1990 they had be know of for years but not recognized them as dino bones because they appear much newer than mineralized bones. They have been verified as Dino bones and at least one bone from a T Rex had Hemeoglobin. The bone still had trabecular structure.

Since you seem to belive in evolution can you show me one case of a species begating another species? I mean cows and horses graze together have you ever seen a corse or a how???

Maybe you've got something there with your hemoglobin argument, I don't know enough science to evaluate it. I originally was a YEC but upon visiting this forum found the old earth evidence pretty overwhelming, and still do. I soom became, and still am, disgusted with creationists for reasons stated. For a moment Hugh Ross seemed to be a beacon in the darkness - until I saw his so-called "harmonizing" of the fossil chronology with the Genesis chronology. It was not only a joke, it was an outright lie. I couldn't believe I was staring at two radically different timelines pictured right on his website - and his page was telling me that the two were a perfect match! Bottom line is, when in doubt, from now on I will always give the benefit of the doubt to published scientists. In your case, a few dinosaur bones are not going to discredit the mountains of old-earth evidence in my view.

Now, getting back to the Bible, I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to insist that a literal interpretation requires a young earth.
There was no sun, as I stated (until the 4th day), so there is no need to insist upon 24-hour daytimes.

 

[JAL]

ThreeAm, I didn't read your whole post (a common error on my part). No, I'm an OEC. I don't believe in evolution.

 

[JAL]

arlier I argued that YEC arguments are usually guilty of a methodological contradaction by arguing "Modern science is using unreliable methods producing inaccurate results" but "these scientific methods are reliable enough to establish a young earth." So I thought I'd give the hemoglobin argument a brief reconsideration looking for evidence of such methodological contradiction. Here's what it looks like to me that the creationists are doing.

How does the YEC establish that old fossils shouldn't contain hemoglobin? Well, they take the oldest examples of hemoglobined bones that they can find and date them. If they can positively date them to, say, 4500 years ago, then we can be pretty sure that fossils older than that should not contain hemoglobin. Next they examine a set of bones that are, say, 6000 years old. If none of these bones have hemoglobin, then this counts (supposedly) as confirmation that bones older than, say, 6000 years should not contain hemoglobin. Therefore if we find hemoglobin in an allegedly 65 million year dinosaur bone, clearly that bone is not really 65 million years old. It is really only 4500 years old, or so, says the YEC.

But notice what this argument depends on. It depends on our abiity to date bones to at leas 4500, even 6000 years. This would imply that at least some of the common dating methods ARE RELIABLE. Now we have an apparent contradiction. If common datting methods are reliable, then that dionosaur bone is INDEED quite old, for that is what these dating methods report. Thus the YEC has actually created more problems than solutions. But what does he do? Does he mention this issue? With a careful, objective, scholarly restraint, does he try to reconcile ALL the data? No. Having cherry-picked his desired conclusion, he surmises, "This is proof that the earth is only 6000 years old." To me, this looks like intellectual dishonesty.

 

[ThreeAM]

Maybe you've got something there with your hemoglobin argument, I don't know enough science to evaluate it. I originally was a YEC but upon visiting this forum found the old earth evidence pretty overwhelming, and still do. I soom became, and still am, disgusted with creationists for reasons stated. For a moment Hugh Ross seemed to be a beacon in the darkness - until I saw his so-called "harmonizing" of the fossil chronology with the Genesis chronology. It was not only a joke, it was an outright lie. I couldn't believe I was staring at two radically different timelines pictured right on his website - and his page was telling me that the two were a perfect match! Bottom line is, when in doubt, from now on I will always give the benefit of the doubt to published scientists. In your case, a few dinosaur bones are not going to discredit the mountains of old-earth evidence in my view.

Now, getting back to the Bible, I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to insist that a literal interpretation requires a young earth.
There was no sun, as I stated (until the 4th day), so there is no need to insist upon 24-hour daytimes.

Well I trust God to know when to make single evening and a single morning. Also notice Moses inspired by God makes NO DIFFENCE in how he describes the timing of all the days of the week. No matter if the sun and moon were created later in the week.

Gen 1:4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

If they were not 24hr days but rather eons of timethen how did plants survive without insects to pollinate them for what ...thousands or maybe millions of years?

And if these single evening an single morning was really eons of time and not 24 days how did all the splants all those millions of years of darkness followed by millions of years of light????

Gen 1:11 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. [A single evening and a single morning.]

An how did all those plants survive for eons without INSECTS to cross pollinate them????


Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Insects were created on the 6th day but the plants would died eons and eons before the insects ever came along.


Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Solution God created the earth in six 24hr day and rested on the 7th 24 hr day.

Why do we have a 7 day week and not a 6, 8, 9, or 10 day week. Both the French and the Russians tried to go to a Ten day week and failed. What celestial event dictates a 7 day week? Not the moon not the sun yet MAN has a 7 day week. Hmmmm.

 

[ThreeAM]

arlier I argued that YEC arguments are usually guilty of a methodological contradaction by arguing "Modern science is using unreliable methods producing inaccurate results" but "these scientific methods are reliable enough to establish a young earth." So I thought I'd give the hemoglobin argument a brief reconsideration looking for evidence of such methodological contradiction. Here's what it looks like to me that the creationists are doing.

How does the YEC establish that old fossils shouldn't contain hemoglobin? Well, they take the oldest examples of hemoglobined bones that they can find and date them. If they can positively date them to, say, 4500 years ago, then we can be pretty sure that fossils older than that should not contain hemoglobin. Next they examine a set of bones that are, say, 6000 years old. If none of these bones have hemoglobin, then this counts (supposedly) as confirmation that bones older than, say, 6000 years should not contain hemoglobin. Therefore if we find hemoglobin in an allegedly 65 million year dinosaur bone, clearly that bone is not really 65 million years old. It is really only 4500 years old, or so, says the YEC.

But notice what this argument depends on. It depends on our abiity to date bones to at leas 4500, even 6000 years. This would imply that at least some of the common dating methods ARE RELIABLE. Now we have an apparent contradiction. If common datting methods are reliable, then that dionosaur bone is INDEED quite old, for that is what these dating methods report. Thus the YEC has actually created more problems than solutions. But what does he do? Does he mention this issue? With a careful, objective, scholarly restraint, does he try to reconcile ALL the data? No. Having cherry-picked his desired conclusion, he surmises, "This is proof that the earth is only 6000 years old." To me, this looks like intellectual dishonesty.

Not at all, I think that Carbon 14 dating can be some what reliable until the time of the flood. But plants and animals or organic things were likely shielded from carbon 14 absorption prior to the flood. So plants and animals prior to the flood would have much less Carbon 14 than would have been predicted if a steady state of absorption of Carbon 14 really did exist. This would make them appear much older than they really were.

It is sort of like if some one carbon dated our bodies a 1000 years from now using the exact same methods as we use today.. Our remains would appear much younger that 1000 years old because of all of the carbon in our atmosphere today since the begining of the industrial revolution from the burning of carbon containing fuels. Our live bodies contain more carbon 14 than someone who lived 200 years ago did before they died.

We KNOW that carbon 14 absorption has not remained in a steady stated in our own life time I cannot leap to the assumption that Carbon 14 up take has remained stable for millions and millions and millions of years.

 

[Jerrysch]

How many laws were written on stone by the finger of God? How many laws were put in the ark seperate from the laws that were transcribed in a book by Moses. God made a differentiation between the Decalog and the laws which Moses transcribe in a book...so do I.

The Mosiac Law was a singlar law, never is it referred to in Scripture as the Law(S) of Moses it is a singularity, your distinctions for this reason mean nothing. It is a single code of law with 613 provisions, they are all a part of the Mosic law, he who breaks one of them is guilty of breaking all of the Law, Scripture is clear on this point. If you desire to be under Law, then be under it all 613 not just the ones you pick, and yet all the law which was given to ethnic Israel and to no one else has been fulfilled in Messiah.

 

[Jerrysch]

If you aren't truelly covinced that it is God's will that you keep the Sabbath then God winks at your inquity in times of ignorance.

If you answer this question you will know the answer to your question.

If you knew that it was against the will of God that you be a thief yet you continue to steal because you you did not care what God wants. I'm talking about a concious rebellion against God's will. Would you be saved?

Those who love God will be saved. God says "if you love me keep my commandments." Obedience is a sign of our love for God. If we don't love Him we won't obey Him either.

Good nonanswer, why did you bother to post at all if you had no intention of answering the questions?

Again :
One issue which I think has escaped this discussion. For those who suggest that we must keep the Sabbath I have a few questions which need to be answered for me to continue in this discussion.
Firstly what are the results of keeping the Sabbath, that is does one need to keep it to be Saved? That is can a person be considered righteous in the eyes of a Holy God if he does not keep the Sabath?

Secoundly will a redeemed sinner loose his eternal life if he does not continue to keep the Sabbath? And if so, how does he then again regain his eternal life.