Christian Forums

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Tue Mar 19, 2024 - 12:43:32There is not a single scientist that doesn't have a religious bias.  With this line of thinking, only those who identify as secular/agnostic/atheist can have their opinions/papers/evidence looked at. 

Nonsense, actual scientists aren't led by a desire to prove/disprove religions. Their work is based on empirical evidence, any bias introduced to alter their work constitutes fraud.  

Quote from: Alan on Wed Mar 20, 2024 - 09:02:09Nonsense, actual scientists aren't led by a desire to prove/disprove religions. Their work is based on empirical evidence, any bias introduced to alter their work constitutes fraud. 

You aren't the arbiter of who is and isn't an actual scientist.  Further, it isn't nonsense.  Everyone has bias and a worldview.  To refuse to realize that bias can influence science is ignorance.

Money influences how science is conducted.

What matters is truth, not even the scientists.

I'm fine with saying the generally accepted theory of evolution is based upon the data we have. 

But to try and shut down dissent isn't science.  Consensus isn't science either.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Wed Mar 20, 2024 - 19:23:21You aren't the arbiter of who is and isn't an actual scientist.  Further, it isn't nonsense.  Everyone has bias and a worldview.  To refuse to realize that bias can influence science is ignorance.

That is true of everyone, not just scientists.  That is true of theologians also and even just us ordinary Christians.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Wed Mar 20, 2024 - 19:23:21But to try and shut down dissent isn't science.

Most dissent in this area of science is usually not science either. More often than not it is religion not science.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Wed Mar 20, 2024 - 19:23:21Consensus isn't science either.

I would agree with that. 

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Wed Mar 20, 2024 - 19:23:21You aren't the arbiter of who is and isn't an actual scientist.  Further, it isn't nonsense.  Everyone has bias and a worldview.  To refuse to realize that bias can influence science is ignorance.

Money influences how science is conducted.

What matters is truth, not even the scientists.

I'm fine with saying the generally accepted theory of evolution is based upon the data we have. 

But to try and shut down dissent isn't science.  Consensus isn't science either.

You're not wrong, you've just conveniently selected minority groups that do not represent the bulk of information we have available to us today. 

Something that appears suddenly, like climate change and the subsequent advice on how we should react, or a virus that might wipe out the world population and what precautions we should take definitely should be scrutinized, but the things that we have confirmed for decades and decades should be pretty rock solid evidence.  

Quote from: Alan on Thu Mar 21, 2024 - 11:49:35You're not wrong, you've just conveniently selected minority groups that do not represent the bulk of information we have available to us today.

Something that appears suddenly, like climate change and the subsequent advice on how we should react, or a virus that might wipe out the world population and what precautions we should take definitely should be scrutinized, but the things that we have confirmed for decades and decades should be pretty rock solid evidence. 

You mean like the Big Bang theory.

https://christiannewsjournal.com/is-the-big-bang-theory-fizzling-scientific-faith-wobbles-on-its-flimsy-axis/

Quoted article below from link above.

QuoteIs the Big Bang "Theory" Fizzling?: Scientific Faith Wobbles on its Flimsy Axis

Science has long sought to unravel the mysteries of the universe's creation from inanimate mass and explain life through the theory of evolution, attributing the diversity of earthly life to this miraculous process. Both beliefs rest on faith, presenting scientific theories rather than evidentiary proof. As new evidence emerges, challenging fantastical pseudo-scientific theories, the guardians of scientific "reason" manipulate data to reinforce their predetermined notion of omniscience.

Recent evidence from the James Webb Space Telescope, humanity's most advanced telescope, revealed the existence of massive, distant galaxies beyond the previously known universe, conflicting with the long-standing Big Bang Theory dominating secular culture. Secular scientists swiftly responded by creating "models" in an attempt to reconcile the new evidence with the old theory, bending facts to resurrect the Big Bang theory within a quasi-religious framework.

According to Space.com, scientists questioning the Big Bang were deemed errant:

"Building galaxies is no easy task. While pen-and-paper mathematics can allow cosmologists to chart the overall history and evolution of the cosmos within the ΛCDM model, galaxy formation involves the complex interplay of many kinds of physics ... Accounting for all these interactions requires the use of supercomputer simulations that take the raw, primal state of the universe as it was billions of years ago and follow the laws of physics to build artificial galaxies. ....The simulations allowed the researchers to play around with many kinds of models. If no models could generate galaxies of that mass at that age, then ΛCDM would be in trouble. Thankfully, there were no such problems...."

In essence, the techno-faithful altered their theoretical models until the new findings fit, affirming their religious belief in events unseen ten billion years ago while dismissing Jesus Christ, who appeared in the flesh a mere two thousand years ago. This faith-based conflict echoes G.K. Chesterton's observation:

"It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything."

Understanding existence demands more profound contemplation than a telescope alone can provide. The separation of ancient galaxies does not address the origin of life or consciousness. Charles Darwin, in later life, lamented that his "theories" had been elevated to a form of religion beyond his expectations, acknowledging, "The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God."

Is Science.com a scientific or theological publication? While claiming to be the former, it delves into the latter, concluding that the Big Bang "Theory" remains sacrosanct – a law? "In science, it's always important to keep an open mind. But the exaggerated claims made from the early Webb data aren't enough to worry about yet." Why would scientists "worry" about the Big Bang theory potentially faltering on its unstable axis? The concern might be rooted in the possibility that there is a God providing purpose to all creation and judging the sinful, causing scientific inquiry to pause.

Science has evolved into a kind of atheist anti-theology: the refusal to study God or entertain the possibility of His existence is a necessary void in this biased inquiry. Peering into the deep recesses of the universe, scientists sidestep the fundamental question of purpose posed by C.S. Lewis:

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

Theories being supported by the speculations of those dead set upon making their theories facts, for decades, the truth does not make. Their chosen faith drives them, every bit as much as those of other chosen faiths.

Speaking of flimsy, quoting articles from rags like christian news journal are just that, flimsy. 

The Big Bang is the most widely accepted and accurate model of how the universe began. 

https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-science-denial

Quote from: Alan on Sat Mar 23, 2024 - 17:36:20Speaking of flimsy, quoting articles from rags like christian news journal are just that, flimsy.

The Big Bang is the most widely accepted and accurate model of how the universe began.

https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-science-denial

Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Something being widely accepted in this world of sin and woe, has nothing to do with establishing truth.

1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21 Therefore let no man glory in men....

https://www.youngearth.com/grand-canyon-nautiloids

Quoted article below from link above.

QuoteMillions of nautiloid fossils prove rapid Grand Canyon limestone formation

Remember the Nautiloids: In the Grand Canyon there is a limestone layer that challenges the textbook explanation of super-slow limestone formation (e.g., the NPS indicates that it took up to 35 million years for Big Bend limestone to form, and a geologist on a popular site says it took about a million years for each 18 feet  at the Grand Canyon). Beginning in the east at seven feet thick, it thickens to about 40 feet as it runs the 277 miles of the canyon and beyond into to Las Vegas, Nevada. This layer contains tens of millions of fossils with an average of one nautiloid fossil per four square meters, with nearly one in seven fossilized standing vertically! Famed Mount St. Helens geologist Steve Austin is also one of the world's two leading experts on nautiloid fossils, and has worked in the canyon for years and presented his findings to the park rangers at the invitation of National Park Service officials.

With a Ph.D. in sedimentary geology from Penn State, Dr. Austin points out, as is true of many of the world's mass fossil graveyards, that this enormous nautiloid deposition, which covers more than 5,000 square miles, provides indisputable proof of the rapid formation of this significant layer of the canyon. Contrast that to the now outdated textbook explanation which has claimed that such massive limestone layers form extremely slowly as grain by grain settles to the bottom of a shallow and placid sea. But a million upright nautiloids beg to differ.

Many of these organisms were longer than your forearm. As seen in the canyon's walls and beyond, millions of nautiloids that were buried in an extremely rapid mass kill as this limestone layer formed. This particular bed, made up of the persistent bottom (basal) layer of the 500-foot thick Redwall Limestone, is exposed throughout the canyon. (Dr. Austin reports that he has even documented nautiloid fossils as far as Lake Mead Boulevard in Las Vegas where the Redwall Limestone is exposed.) Along with many other dead creatures in this narrow layer, 15% of these nautiloids were killed and then fossilized upright. Yes, vertically. They were catastrophically buried, being caught in a hyperconcentrated flow, such that gravity was not able to cause all of their dead carcasses to fall over onto their sides.

Even a strongly-biased old-earth geologist should be able to agree that, if these fossils exist, as Dr. Austin and others have been documenting them, then this must be considered hard evidence of rapid limestone deposition for this layer. However, from our experience at Real Science Radio, paleontologists, geologists, atheists, Darwinists, and even the anti-Darwinists in the Intelligent Design movement, generally have a very hard time acknowledging such powerful evidence and such obvious conclusions. Why would this be? Because that limestone layers as at the Grand Canyon only form slowly is a claim that is too big to fail.

For more information, see geologist Steven Austin's video at Real Science Radio's Nautiloids in Grand Canyon Limestone, see this nautiloid information in a RSR debate with popular atheist AronRa at England's League of Reason.  Finally, see the Geological Society of America abstract, the Canyon-Length Mass Kill of Orthocone, Nautiloids, Redwall Limestone (Mississippian), Grand Canyon, Arizona. This states, "Large fossil orthocone nautiloids are amassed within a thin but extremely persistent bed in the basal member of the Redwall Limestone throughout the length of the Grand Canyon. ... Fossil density... within Marble Canyon is greater than one orthocone nautiloid per four square meters. Similar nautiloid density is seen on ledges along Havasu Creek in central Grand Canyon and at a cliff face... in western Grand Canyon. ... A gigantic population of orthocone nautiloids was overcome by a a canyon-length event impacting an area exceeding one thousand square kilometers." (See also rsr.org/list-of-not-so-old-things.)

Here's the Point: Most scientists default to claiming super-slow deep-time processes when trying to explain many features of nature. But more careful observation though often shows hard scientific evidence that falsifies the claimed million-year process. So, while evolutionists everywhere insist otherwise, the catastrophic burial of nautiloids in a widespread limestone deposit at the Grand Canyon proves that layer formed rapidly. And unless we refuse to learn this big lesson from history, we should now challenge similar slow-process claims elsewhere.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Polystrate-Fossils-Require-Rapid-Deposition-Oard-Giesecke/d8cb42163c88b6dfd24ffed3cf438190bae9eacf

QuotePolystrate Fossils Require Rapid Deposition

Polystrate fossils are one of numerous evidences for the rapid deposition of strata, as opposed to the uniformitarian belief in slow deposition over millions of years. They are briefly described from the Joggins Formation, Nova Scotia; Yellowstone National Park, Montana and Wyoming; Ginkgo Petrified Forest State Park, Washington; the Geodetic Hills of Axel Heiberg Island; the Lompoc diatomite, California; and a diatomite from Peru. Uniformitarian geologists usually ignore polystrate fossils or claim that they represent only local rapid deposition, but they rarely supply any supporting evidence. A new location with polystrate petrified trees is described from open-pit coal mines in Alaska. About twenty upright trees at many different levels support rapid deposition of the strata there. The upright trees can be explained by the creationist log mat model, and evidence from the coal mines supports that interpretation.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Fossil-Grove-and-other-Paleozoic-Forests-as-Flood-Wise/d25ab738815a07a195f2bd2140e520fc59124984

QuoteFossil Grove and other Paleozoic Forests as Allochthonous Flood Deposits

The lycopod stumps at Fossil Grove in Victoria Park, Glasgow, are widely believed to be in situ in a sandy mudstone. However, flattened axial systems, unattached stigmarian appendages, and the thinness, lack of bioturbation and lack of soil development in the sandy mudstone suggest the stumps were emplaced allochthonously. The limited metamorphism and lack of bioturbation in Fossil Grove sediments not only confirm allochthony, but suggest all the sediments were deposited in the same diluvial catastrophe. The distribution of stumps with respect to possible megaripples in the underlying unit, combined with the deformation of axial systems, suggest the lycopod trees lived and grew in water, and decomposed while floating in water, before being deposited at this location. Subsurface borehole and the plunging synclinal outcrop pattern of sediments in the Glasgow region suggest Fossil Grove sediments sit atop thousands of feet of fossiliferous sediments and thousands of feet of flood basalts. Unlike Clarey and Tomkins' (2016) claim, Fossil Grove stumps were allochthonously deposited well into the Flood. When Clarey and Tomkins' (2016) autochthony criteria are corrected, generalized, and expanded, 12 autochthony criteria applied to Fossil Grove stumps argue strongly for their allochthonous emplacement. Among Carboniferous fossil forests in general, their rapid and prolonged burial, the placement of most of them over coal, the commonness of a single higher taxon, and the near-ubiquity of internal-mold preservation collectively suggest that the application of the same 12 criteria to claims of in situ Paleozoic forests will indicate all of them were generated allochthonously during the Flood.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Upright-Petrified-Trees-of-Ramshorn-Peak%2C-Montana-Manning/df40e35a6ddd34575355173ecb01a257ab2cee25

QuoteUpright Petrified Trees of Ramshorn Peak, Montana

Two upright petrified trees on Ramshorn Peak, Montana, were examined. One is quite large and located near the summit of this high mountain. The second is unusually tall and is located at a lower elevation. They are similar to those found in the Specimen Ridge area of Yellowstone National Park. Field evidence corresponds with a Flood model, based on observations from the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption. They were likely catastrophically uprooted, then floated on the waters, and then sank in an upright position, where they were buried and petrified. Finally, they were exposed by the uplift of the land and erosion of the Floodwaters running off in the recessive stage of the Flood.

https://educateforlife.org/polystrate-fossils/

QuotePolystrate Fossils

Why are fossilized trees discovered spanning across multiple rock layers?

A polystrate fossil cuts across many geological layers. Poly means "many" and stratum means "layer", hence "many layers". The eroding cliffs of Joggins, Nova Scotia are famous for their abundance of polystrate or fossilized trees that cut through many layers. The evolutionists' explanation for a tree to be polystrate is that a tree was slowly covered with sediment over millions of years. But does this explanation really make sense? Wouldn't the tree rot away during all that time?
 
Polystrate fossils are found on a worldwide scale. Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone has numerous fossilized trees cutting through many rock layers. Ginkgo Petrified Forest State Park in Washington has multiple examples of trees that are also polystrate. In Lompoc, California, an upright whale fossil cuts up through many layers. Wouldn't the whale have rotted if it had taken millions of years to be covered? In Peru, 346 well preserved whales and other animals have been uncovered. These whales were also polystrate. Coal mines frequently contain polystrate trees.
 
The one-year Genesis Flood perfectly explains such geological observations. Fossilized trees and whales are found penetrating through multiple layers of sediment because these layers were formed rapidly, not slowly over millions of years. Polystrate fossils point to rapid burial and the reality of Noah's flood. The science of paleontology is filled with dead creatures whose orientations in the rock layers testify to this flood event. God has left us a world filled with polystrate fossils as evidence for a worldwide Flood.

The following question is asked in educateforlife.org: "Why do you think humans were created by God, when science proves that evolution created life?"

That is pathetic. If that is the extent of their understanding about evolution, they should be avoided at all costs.  Science doesn't prove that evolution created life. Scientists haven't, can't and don't prove that evolution created life. 

Quote from: Amo on Sat Mar 23, 2024 - 07:25:30You mean like the Big Bang theory.

https://christiannewsjournal.com/is-the-big-bang-theory-fizzling-scientific-faith-wobbles-on-its-flimsy-axis/

Quoted article below from link above.

Theories being supported by the speculations of those dead set upon making their theories facts, for decades, the truth does not make. Their chosen faith drives them, every bit as much as those of other chosen faiths.

That article made the following statement:

In essence, the techno-faithful altered their theoretical models until the new findings fit.....

Well duh!!!  That is precisely what science is all about. All that statment says is that the author is about as scientifically challenged as you Amo.

Originally, the best minds thought that the known, visible universe was the full extent of the world. When Galileo and others began to look through telescopes it became obvious that was not really true. The "model" of the universe was altered. But even then the best minds thought that the earth was at the center of the universe and the sun, moon and stars were in motion around the earth.  Models were developed to explain such motion.  Then as more data became available it was found that the geocentric model was not correct.  It was modified to reflect the more recent data.

We can establish a similar progression of model development for just about every aspect of science.  That is exactly how it is supposed to work.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Mar 24, 2024 - 05:47:05That article made the following statement:

In essence, the techno-faithful altered their theoretical models until the new findings fit.....

Well duh!!!  That is precisely what science is all about. All that statment says is that the author is about as scientifically challenged as you Amo.

Originally, the best minds thought that the known, visible universe was the full extent of the world. When Galileo and others began to look through telescopes it became obvious that was not really true. The "model" of the universe was altered. But even then the best minds thought that the earth was at the center of the universe and the sun, moon and stars were in motion around the earth.  Models were developed to explain such motion.  Then as more data became available it was found that the geocentric model was not correct.  It was modified to reflect the more recent data.

We can establish a similar progression of model development for just about every aspect of science.  That is exactly how it is supposed to work.

Yes, and that is the exact method of learning among Creation scientists as well, readjusting views they were wrong about as new evidence or knowledge reveals. The main difference being, as I have pointed out over and over again on these boards, that Creationists admit of their faith based endeavors from the get go. While evolutionists claim factual evidence for their theory which they claim is fact, rather than the blatant faith all can see concerning their theory.

They have been and have proved themselves wrong over and over and over again, and yet still claim their theories regarding the evidence to be facts continually. Which is in fact the greatest evidence that their views are just as faith based as those of Creationists or anyone else. Their world view is the final determination concerning their theory they insist is fact, not the evidence which most obviously can be viewed by either side as supporting their own faith based preconceptions.

Many assumptions made by deep time evolutionary scientists regarding the big Bang are being proved wrong by new evidence provided by the James Webb telescope. Naturally, their faith in the deep time evolutionary scenario or theory is not shaken, they will just redefine and adjust their views according to that faith. Not considering other options, such as the possibility that they are wrong from the get go. Because that is how faith works. Nevertheless -

Isa 8:20  To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Mar 24, 2024 - 09:17:13Many assumptions made by deep time evolutionary scientists regarding the big Bang are being proved wrong by new evidence provided by the James Webb telescope.

This is absolutely false, clarifying and reconfiguring the math and physics do not equate to the original model being incorrect. We have simply progressed to the point of having more accurate data, which may continue to change as time and technology progress, but it never wipes the slate clean and says "we were wrong about everything". This is just how science works.

Quoted articles or titles below the links below, are from those links. Emphasis is mine. My comments are in blue.

https://www.livescience.com/coolest-non-dino-fossils-2021

Ancient arachnid brain

In July, researchers released their findings on a rare fossilized brain from an extinct species of horseshoe crab (actually an arachnid, not a crustacean) that was found at Mazon Creek in Illinois. The brain fossil is believed to be around 310 million years old, making it one of the oldest of its kind ever discovered.

Soft tissues that make up brains are prone to rapid decay, so brain fossils are extremely rare. In this case, the brain tissue was replaced by a white mineral known as kaolinite that created an accurate mold of the brain. This was only possible due to the unique geological conditions at the site.

"This is the first and only evidence for a brain in a fossil horseshoe crab," lead author Russell Bicknell, a paleontologist at the University of New England in Maine, told Live Science at the time. The chances of finding a fossilized brain are "one in a million," he added. "Although, even then, chances are they are even rarer."

According to the above article then, brain fossils are extremely rare. No doubt the unique conditions mentioned in passing, which allowed for this kind of "unique" preservation, included rapid burial in muddy or watery conditions. A detail left out, because so very many fossils being formed in and or by such conditions is indicative of course, of catastrophic wide spread flood or flooding events.

We will now witness the ever evolving nature of the theory of evolution in several articles concerning the same subject of very "rare" brain fossils.

https://phys.org/news/2023-02-million-year-old-fish-earliest-fossilized-brain.html

319-million-year-old fish preserves the earliest fossilized brain of a backboned animal

The CT-scanned skull of a 319-million-year-old fossilized fish, pulled from a coal mine in England more than a century ago, has revealed the oldest example of a well-preserved vertebrate brain.

The brain and its cranial nerves are roughly an inch long and belong to an extinct bluegill-size fish. The discovery opens a window into the neural anatomy and early evolution of the major group of fishes alive today, the ray-finned fishes, according to the authors of a University of Michigan-led study scheduled for publication Feb. 1 in Nature.

The serendipitous find also provides insights into the preservation of soft parts in fossils of backboned animals. Most of the animal fossils in museum collections were formed from hard body parts such as bones, teeth and shells.

The CT-scanned brain analyzed for the new study belongs to Coccocephalus wildi, an early ray-finned fish that swam in an estuary and likely dined on small crustaceans, aquatic insects and cephalopods, a group that today includes squid, octopuses and cuttlefish. Ray-finned fishes have backbones and fins supported by bony rods called rays.

When the fish died, the soft tissues of its brain and cranial nerves were replaced during the fossilization process with a dense mineral that preserved, in exquisite detail, their three-dimensional structure.

In this article, the term extremely rare is replaced with the word serendipitous, downgrading from extremely rare to more like unexpected if you will. As this discovery and as we will see others like it, have dispelled the extremely rare category concerning preservation of soft brain tissues. Once again, while the fossilization process is mentioned, no finer details of that process are discussed. As it is no doubt without question that rapid burial and or watery conditions were involved. As such is almost certainly necessary for exquisite detail in fossils, as described in the above article.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-fossilize-brain-180957219/

How to Fossilize a Brain

A new study shows that brains can can fossilize like bones

For years, paleontologists thought it was impossible for organs like the brain to last long enough to become fossils. After all, squishy body parts like brains usually decompose a lot quicker than bones and teeth. But now, a group of scientists have upended this idea with the discovery of seven fossilized brains more than 500 million years old.

This isn't the first time a fossilized brain has been discovered: Four of the scientists who worked on this new find were involved with the first ever reported finding of a fossilized brain in 2012 in the journal Nature. But at the time, many paleontologists were skeptical of the find, saying that it was more likely to be an artifact left behind by experiments or an implausibly rare one-off.

But while that study relied on a single specimen, the team has since uncovered seven new examples of fossilized brains from the same species of an ancient arthropod, according to the new study published in Current Biology.

"People, especially scientists, make assumptions. The fun thing about science, actually, is to demolish them," Strausfeld said in a statement.

In order to become fossils, the creatures were most likely buried in an underwater mudslide, like other well-preserved fossils from the Cambrian, Mo Costandi reports for The Guardian. That way, their bodies (and brains) would have been sealed off from scavengers looking for a snack as low levels of oxygen in the soil kept microbes from decomposing the carcasses.

Time alone doesn't make something fossilize: It also takes extreme pressure to squeeze out water. This is one of the reasons that it's much more common to find fossilized bones and teeth than fossil tissue, which tend to just pop under the pressure.

The fossils in question belong to an extinct shrimp-like creature called Fuxianhuia protensa. Discovered in southwest China's famously fossil-rich Chengjiang Shales, the arthropods probably lived during the Cambrian Period around 520 million years ago and possessed brains similar to modern-day crustaceans, which is probably one of the reasons their brain cells survived for so long instead of being pulverized under pressure, Kiona Smith-Strickland writes for Gizmodo.
"F. protensa's tissue density appears to have made all the difference," Strausfeld said in a statement.
To test this theory, Strausfeld and his colleagues examined the seven new fossils with an electron microscope, discovering their brains had been flattened over time into a thin film of carbon. Even after millennia, their neural pathways were still identifiable, co-author Xiaoya Ma tells Smith-Strickland.

The team then ran experiments to mimic the fossilization process, like burying live sandworms in clay and seawater to see whether their nervous systems survived being entombed (they did). In a similar test burying live cockroach brains, the scientists discovered they were flattened just like the fossilized F. protensa brains.

In the process of proving their find, the scientists also stumbled on some interesting clues to how modern arthropod brains might have evolved. When Strausfeld's team first discovered the fossils, they discovered that F. protensa had a complex brain similar to some modern insects, which suggests that some arthropods regressed to a simpler nervous system over time, Costandi reports. Previously, most paleontologists believed that arthropods evolved from a clam-like species with a simple brain.

In this article, we see the abandonment of the extremely rare and or serendipitous claims concerning the preservation of brain soft tissues and or other soft tissues as the case has been in recent years. While addressing as well, the rapid burial and watery or muddy conditions largely responsible for such good fossil preservations. When the situation could no longer  be avoided, the facts about excellent fossil preservation had to be addressed. Which facts are more indicative of catastrophic flood conditions, than the slower processes evolutionists of the past have claimed in relation to fossil formation. Avoiding such observations no doubt, because of the relevance such attaches to young earth Creationism. The theory was even tested and proved accurate.

This is not to say of course, that these articles give any credence to young earth Creationism. To the contrary, deep time evolutionary faith, does not allow for such consideration. The number of times observations concerning deep time theories are proved wrong has no apparent effect upon deep time evolutionary faith, because faith is exactly what such is. The science is developed along lines which supports the faith, not the other way around. Creationists understand this line of thought as well, freely admitting that their science is based first, upon their faith in the word of God. While deep time evolutionary faithful tend to lean more toward claiming that their faith is indeed scientific fact, regardless of how many times they have been wrong. Or how many times the eventual discovered truth, seems to support Creationism better than deep time scenarios.

As I have pointed out before on these boards, the discovery of complexity in living organisms further, and further, and further back in supposed time by deep timers, is a clear indication that complexity was there from the beginning. To the same effect, the continually increased discovery of highly detailed fossils of soft tissues, is far more indicative of rapid burial in watery or muddy conditions. Which itself not only removes the need for deep time development of fossils, but increasingly suggest the exact opposite. The chances of such detailed fossils even surviving for tens or hundreds of millions of years, should in fact make such finds outlandishly rare. To the contrary though, they seem to be ever on the increase. This at the same time no doubt, while countless fossils are being destroyed at an alarming rate the world over. As they always would have been simply over the course of millions of years in any case.

Yes, deep time evolutionary faith, is a very deep faith indeed. Not easily shaken by the constant correction of erroneous views, and or evidences ending up more favorable toward young earth Creationism, than deep time scenarios. Nevertheless, this is how true faith works. It is not easily shaken.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-03-20-oxford-researchers-uncover-remarkable-archive-ancient-human-brains

A new study conducted by researchers at the University of Oxford has challenged previously held views that brain preservation in the archaeological record is extremely rare. The team carried out the largest study to date of the global archaeological literature about preserved human brains to compile an archive that exceeds 20-fold the number of brains previously compiled. The findings have been published today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Soft tissue preservation in the geological record is relatively rare, and, except where deliberate intervention halts the process of decay (for instance, during embalming or freezing), the survival of entire organs is particularly unusual. The spontaneous preservation of the brain in the absence of any other soft tissues - that is, the brain's survival amongst otherwise skeletonised remains - has historically been regarded as a 'one-of-a kind' phenomenon. This new research reveals, however, that nervous tissues actually persist in much greater abundances than traditionally thought, assisted by conditions that prevent decay.

The study, led by postgraduate researcher Alexandra Morton-Hayward (Department of Earth Sciences, Oxford), brings together the records of more than 4,000 preserved human brains from over two hundred sources, across six continents (excluding Antarctica), and in more than ten languages. Many of these brains were up to 12,000 years old, and found in records dating back to the mid-17th century. These shrunken, discoloured tissues were found preserved in all manner of individuals: from Egyptian and Korean royalty, through British and Danish monks, to Arctic explorers and victims of war.

Scouring the literature and canvassing historians worldwide, this concerted search found a bewildering array of archaeological sites yielding ancient human brains, including the shores of a lakebed in Stone Age Sweden, the depths of an Iranian salt mine around 500 BC, and the summit of Andean volcanoes at the height of the Incan Empire.

Every brain in the database was matched with historic climate data from the same area, to explore trends in when and where they were found. The analyses revealed patterns in the environmental conditions associated with different modes of preservation through time - including dehydration, freezing, saponification (the transformation of fats to 'grave wax'), and tanning (usually with peat, to form bog bodies).
Co-author, Professor Erin Saupe, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, said: ''This record of ancient brains highlights the array of environments in which they can be preserved from the high arctic to arid deserts.'

Over 1,300 of the human brains were the only soft tissues preserved, prompting questions as to why the brain may persist when other organs perish. Interestingly, these brains also represent the oldest in the archive, with several dating to the last Ice Age. The mechanism of preservation for these oldest brains remains unknown; however, the research team suggest that molecular crosslinking and metal complexation – proteins and lipids fusing in the presence of elements such as iron or copper - are feasible mechanisms by which nervous tissues might be preserved over long timescales.

Alexandra Morton-Hayward, lead author of the study, said 'In the forensic field, it is well-known that the brain is one of the first organs to decompose after death – yet this huge archive clearly demonstrates that there are certain circumstances in which it survives. Whether those circumstances are environmental, or related to the brain's unique biochemistry, is the focus of our ongoing and future work. We're finding amazing numbers and types of ancient biomolecules preserved in these archaeological brains, and it's exciting to explore all that they can tell us about life and death in our ancestors.'

Finding soft tissues preserved is a bioarchaeologist's treasure trove: they generally provide a greater depth and range of information than hard tissues alone, yet less than 1% of preserved brains have been investigated for ancient biomolecules. The untapped archive of 4,400 human brains described in this study may provide new and unique insights into our history, helping us to better understand ancient health and disease, and the evolution of human cognition and behaviour.

The study 'Human brains preserve in diverse environments for at least 12,000 years' has been published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

Now in the above article the idea that fossilized soft brain tissue is rare, is openly challenged. There is much more preservation than previously thought, especially when assisted by conditions which prevent decay. Rapid burial and pressure is not mentioned, nor the obvious conclusion, that their deep time and our time scenarios may be wrong all together.

Of course we already know and understand how ones faith can and does effect their views. The article admits that the method of preservation for the oldest of these brain tissues is unknown. The remaining links to articles and their titles, are simply to show the increasing number of soft tissue preservation finds. Those of the Creationist faith of course, believe such is due to their own scientific observations in relation to establishing their views, which contradict those of the deep timers.
 
https://interestingengineering.com/science/the-worlds-oldest-fossilised-brain-question-theories-evolved

The world's oldest fossilized brain calls to question our theories about how it evolved

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/first-known-fossilized-dinosaur-brain-unearthed-scientists-claim

First known fossilized dinosaur brain unearthed, scientists claim

https://news.arizona.edu/story/525-million-year-old-fossil-defies-textbook-explanation-brain-evolution

525-million-year-old fossil defies textbook explanation for brain evolution

https://www.livescience.com/new-athropod-fossil-brains-found.html

Fossilized Brains Found in Ancient Bug-Like Creatures

https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/fossils/462-million-year-old-fossilized-eyes-and-brains-uncovered-in-secret-welsh-fossil-site

462 million-year-old fossilized eyes and brains uncovered in 'secret' Welsh fossil site

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/03/science/dinosaur-brain.html

We've Rarely Seen a Dinosaur Brain Like this Before

Quote from: Alan on Sun Mar 24, 2024 - 10:42:30This is absolutely false, clarifying and reconfiguring the math and physics do not equate to the original model being incorrect. We have simply progressed to the point of having more accurate data, which may continue to change as time and technology progress, but it never wipes the slate clean and says "we were wrong about everything". This is just how science works.

Yea, we know. Follow the science, your science of course. I understand how your faith in the theory remains unshaken  . That is how faith in what we choose to believe is.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Mar 24, 2024 - 15:00:18Yea, we know. Follow the science, your science of course.

Just one more example of your being scientifically challenged. It is God's science. He is the creator of all the natural functions of the universe. It is up to man to discover it. Has man discovered it all?  Probably not by a long shot. But that doesn't mean he has discovered nothing.

I understand that goes completely counter to you thinking. In your way of thinking if God hasn't provided it in scripture or some biased religious person hasn't provided it, then it must be wrong.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Mar 24, 2024 - 15:00:18I understand how your faith in the theory remains unshaken. That is how faith in what we choose to believe is.

As for your view of faith, you act as if one can not believe in God and believe the science that is at the same time.  Pure nonsense.

Anytime someone presents facts to Amo, he resorts to applying "faith" to those facts. He's flat out, blatantly incorrect, especially when he attempts to insert false science in place of those facts. 

For those people who claim that there is scientific proof
of evolution, here is a question.

What are the chances that the explosion of everything LGTBQ + these days is caused by evolutionary mutations?

And if not, why not?

 

Quote from: Rella on Wed Mar 27, 2024 - 07:06:47For those people who claim that there is scientific proof
of evolution, here is a question.

What are the chances that the explosion of everything LGTBQ + these days is caused by evolutionary mutations?

And if not, why not?

 

I am not an "biological evolutionist".  I don't really know enough about biology to really comment on it one way or the other.  I do believe that if God wanted evolution to be a part of His creation He could certainly do that.  Whether He did or not is really up to someone besides me to say.

With respect to your question of whether or not the current sexual deviants are the result of evolution I think the usual presentation of evolution is that those qualities that evolve in a positive direction usually prevail while those that evolve in a negative direction usually fail eventually.  So I guess my question would be what can possibly be positive in the evolution towards sexual deviance?  Why would such a move in that direction prevail?

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Mar 24, 2024 - 18:32:51Just one more example of your being scientifically challenged. It is God's science. He is the creator of all the natural functions of the universe. It is up to man to discover it. Has man discovered it all?  Probably not by a long shot. But that doesn't mean he has discovered nothing.

I understand that goes completely counter to you thinking. In your way of thinking if God hasn't provided it in scripture or some biased religious person hasn't provided it, then it must be wrong.
As for your view of faith, you act as if one can not believe in God and believe the science that is at the same time.  Pure nonsense.

All the above is pure contrived nonsense. I am not the one who states as you did above that it is all God's science, but denies God and or His creation can have anything to do with real science. That is on you. 

Humanity has "discovered" many things. Which a great many twist into evidence against God and the testimony of His holy scriptures. This is the habit of the majority of humanity according to the testimony of scripture itself.

I have never acted as though one cannot believe in God and science at the same time. That assertion is pure contrived nonsense on your part. I am not the one who insists that God's creation and science must be mutually exclusive of each other, you are. Stop accusing me of what you are doing. I simply believe that true science will support the truths of God's word, as simply stated. That scripture is of higher authority and authenticity than the scattered and splattered observations and speculations of ever wavering humanity. As the nature of science itself proves over and over again, in the necessary changes and adjustments it continually makes to align itself with truth as advancing data requires.

God's word needs no such adjustments, being the perfect truth expressed first and foremost by His very own Son Jesus Christ, His apostles, and His prophets of holy scripture. Humanities part, is to choose their faith in either the word of God, or the creatures God created who have chosen to contradict that testimony. So be it as God's word has determined.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdRLx_A7B1w

Another good one by Answers In Genesis Canada.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Mar 30, 2024 - 07:45:33https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdRLx_A7B1w

Another good one by Answers In Genesis Canada.

That of course was all quite a nice description of things.  I do not know enough about biology to either confirm or deny what the author said in that video.

However, My take on his message is that whatever it is that needed to occur could not have happened naturally.  My question is if that did not happen naturally, then what did occur and when did it occur. It seems pretty clear that everything that exists today was not created ex nihilo some six, eight or ten thousand years ago. If God needed to "tweak" some processes along the way, why could He not have done that.  The point of that video was not that God couldn't have done the appropriate tweaking, but that in fact He didn't.  My question therefore is how the author knows that.  In fact, he doesn't know that God didn't employ such providential acts somewhere and sometime along the way.  He just assumes that He didn't, because otherwise it wouldn't fit with his obvious interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

I would also question the author's ability to know that it could not have happened "naturally" as part of the original creation.  It is just that the way such could happen has not yet been discovered. It is so hard to prove negatives.

Quote from: Rella on Wed Mar 27, 2024 - 07:06:47For those people who claim that there is scientific proof
of evolution, here is a question.

What are the chances that the explosion of everything LGTBQ + these days is caused by evolutionary mutations?

And if not, why not?

 

I'm no biologist either, but I believe these things are more akin to a reactionary effect that is directly related to our environment, the foods we eat, the drugs we take, the water we drink, and possibly the air we breathe. It doesn't fall into the category of evolution itself, but perhaps one of the sub-categories such as natural selection or adaptive evolution. 

It's not just sexual orientations either, people's height, hand and foot sizes, digest systems, facial features, and probably a few other things have noticeably changed over the past few centuries. 

Not sure if any of these changes could be considered natural, but they are changes nevertheless.  

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Mar 31, 2024 - 07:56:25That of course was all quite a nice description of things.  I do not know enough about biology to either confirm or deny what the author said in that video.

However, My take on his message is that whatever it is that needed to occur could not have happened naturally.  My question is if that did not happen naturally, then what did occur and when did it occur. It seems pretty clear that everything that exists today was not created ex nihilo some six, eight or ten thousand years ago. If God needed to "tweak" some processes along the way, why could He not have done that.  The point of that video was not that God couldn't have done the appropriate tweaking, but that in fact He didn't.  My question therefore is how the author knows that.  In fact, he doesn't know that God didn't employ such providential acts somewhere and sometime along the way.  He just assumes that He didn't, because otherwise it wouldn't fit with his obvious interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

I would also question the author's ability to know that it could not have happened "naturally" as part of the original creation.  It is just that the way such could happen has not yet been discovered. It is so hard to prove negatives.

And yet, you are so positive Creation did not happen as the bible plainly states it happened, the fourth commandment dictates, and the rest of scripture fully supports. The way such happened has been more than discovered, God has told us in His word how, when, and how long He took to make it happen. You have simply chosen another faith.

Psa 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth. 5 He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. 6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

God's word is living, and active, and a consuming fire upon all who reject or deny it. Because He is before all things, and by Him all things consist and have their being, and apart from Him there is nothing.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. 17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. 19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

All the world will witness the power of God's word when our Lord returns. That it not only has the power to create, but also destroy that which was cerated by it.

Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

You simply do not believe the word of God concerning its own testimony regarding the power of it.

Quote from: Amo on Thu Apr 04, 2024 - 04:54:12You simply do not believe the word of God concerning its own testimony regarding the power of it.

I simply do not believe your interpretations of the word of God. I do not count you as any kind of authority in that regard, and not just the Genesis creation account.  The very fact that you identify as SDA alerts me to consider any interpretation from you on any theological subject as spurious.

Quote from: Amo on Thu Apr 04, 2024 - 04:54:12Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

You posted that apparently in response to my post.  Perhaps you should read that carefully while standing in from of a mirror.  You have the tendency to post such passages as warnings to others while ignoring that it may be even more applicable to you than those to whom you have directed it.

Another question, pleae.

Is it specifically said within the bible, or from some outside source that somewhere out there in space that God had not created another
planet with some kind of life on it for His purposes.

Is it specifically said within the bible , or from some outside source
that somewhere out there in space that God had not created 
another planet with some kind of life on it for His purposes that had seen its end before we came to be?

Personally, I believe that it is true. However, I have not seen any such claim as that anywhere. 

Quote from: 4WD on Thu Apr 04, 2024 - 05:13:57I simply do not believe your interpretations of the word of God. I do not count you as any kind of authority in that regard, and not just the Genesis creation account.  The very fact that you identify as SDA alerts me to consider any interpretation from you on any theological subject as spurious.

You know where the SDA thread is. Come on over and and address the spuriousness of SDA interpretation.

Quote from: 4WD on Thu Apr 04, 2024 - 05:24:28You posted that apparently in response to my post.  Perhaps you should read that carefully while standing in from of a mirror.  You have the tendency to post such passages as warnings to others while ignoring that it may be even more applicable to you than those to whom you have directed it.

If God's word says and even commands all that it does in relation to a six day creation, without ever addressing anything even remotely like a deep time theory of evolution, and evolution turns out to be true, then it is as unreliable as everything else in this world. I would not, and will not worship such a deceptive being claiming to be the God portrayed in holy scripture.

There is no good reason for God to lie, to beings he created with plenty enough intellect, intelligence, and curiosity to easily comprehend such an account as deep time evolution. It would in fact be cruel to simply state what He has about creation, while deep time evolution was the truth of the matter. Deceptive from the very beginning of His supposed word.

We worship different God's. I will not worship the one you espouse. Who would say so much about the importance of truth in His word, while outright lying to so many right from the beginning of His supposed testimony. Then backing that lie up all throughout the rest of that testimony as well. If His own supposed testimony is that unreliable and contradicting, then He is no God, or certainly not one I would choose to worship. Nevertheless -

Exo 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Psa 25:10 All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.

Psa 31:5 Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth.

Psa 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.

Psa 96:13 Before the LORD: for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth.

Psa 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

Psa 117:2 For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the LORD endureth for ever. Praise ye the LORD.

Isa 25:1 O LORD, thou art my God; I will exalt thee, I will praise thy name; for thou hast done wonderful things; thy counsels of old are faithfulness and truth.

Isa 65:16 That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes.

Dan 4:37 Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.

Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jhn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Psa 146:5 Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God: 6 Which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth for ever:

Psa 119:142 Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.

Psa 119:151 Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth.

1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Exo 20:8  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Quote from: Rella on Thu Apr 04, 2024 - 15:45:21Another question, pleae.

Is it specifically said within the bible, or from some outside source that somewhere out there in space that God had not created another
planet with some kind of life on it for His purposes.

Is it specifically said within the bible , or from some outside source
that somewhere out there in space that God had not created 
another planet with some kind of life on it for His purposes that had seen its end before we came to be?

I know of no such testimony from scripture. There certainly are other beings, some likely from other planets, but nothing about anything else God created coming to and end. Save the future end predicted for this planet.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Apr 05, 2024 - 06:29:40You know where the SDA thread is. Come on over and and address the spuriousness of SDA interpretation.

Sorry, just not interested, either in your interpretations or that of any SDA proponent.  You have personally demonstrated to me all that I know, or want to know, about SDA.  It is foreign to the Bible I read.