Creation scientists

[Amo]

If you have no faith in science, then why do you not simply jumped out of a tall building rather than taking the slow way of stairs or elevators?

You continue to intimate that anyone who "has faith in science" is devoid of the "real faith in God". You are wrong.

I am not attacking science at all, just science so called. Faith in the theory of evolution as the mechanism of our present existence is not science at all. Nor has it or can it be proved beyond a doubt as scientific fact, any more than YEC can. Even if it could be proved to be observed all around us, as some falsely claim it is, this would still not prove it as the mechanism of our present existence. As such could easily be by created design, as the ability of life to adapt and change most obviously is. Broken down to its simplest form, the argument here is largely about special creation in six days as scripture plainly states it, or deep time processes of evolutionary change unto ever greater complexity as the imaginations of men have determined. Science has nothing to do with one's choice regarding either of these faiths. Scientific evidences of what actually is and can now be observed, are presented by both sides as evidence, of their already chosen faith concerning either or. Each side interpreting the evidence according as their faith directs them.

[pppp]

Thank you readers for your replies.
Just wanted to share this with all the readers.

Can believers have faith in God & believe in Science at the same time?
Please allow me to humbly answer this question.

It's not that people can't believe in God & study Science at the same time.
But its easy to believe in both when the answers to the issues concerned are similar.

But when the answers are differing, (as in the cases of Evolution & the Creation of the earth),
then the believer should know whom to believe in?
Whether in Scripture or Science?
Science appears like authority because it gives numerous complex formulae, explanations & theories & laws based on experiments.

Whereas The Holy Bible may not directly give laws & theories,
but the verses mentioned clearly state & explain that God is perfect & knows what He does.

Science is very interesting but reverence is for Father God & Scripture.
In the cases of Evolution & the Creation of the earth,
Scripture & science have conflicting viewpoints.
So how can people believe  two contradictory things at the same time???
God has given a free will to everyone,
so people can choose what explanation fits their questions, but for those
who trust God more, will eventually believe in God.
Because God is trustworthy, wise & supreme.


Does science believe in Resurrection of Christ??
Can science explain about the resurrection of Christ???
Does science believe in the miracles & supernatural happenings given in the Bible & in every era??
Will science believe that Prophet Elijah went up in Heaven in a Chariot of fire (2 Kings 2).
Can Science bring back to life, a person who has passed away??

But Father God can do the impossible.
He is outside of time & space.
And so when a Perfect God can bring back Christ to life (Resurrection), perform miracles & supernatural happenings,
so God can also make a perfect world.
Which He has made.
So, when there are contradictory statements reg., evolution & the creation of the earth,
its up to every believer to either believe in Father God or science.
But believers should believe in Father God as He is perfect,
Amen.

Deuteronomy 32:4 : "He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he."

Psalm 19:7 says: "The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing  the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple."

"As for God, his way is perfect: The Lord's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him" Psalm 18:30

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j49ir8Ey00

A perfect example of deep time evolutionary faith in action, presented as scientific fact, concerning a great amount of detail regarding what was taking place 90,000,000 years ago. Based upon evidence buried deep under the ocean floor, containing all kinds of things evolutionary scientists tell us can last apparently for 90,000,000 years buried under the intense pressures of countless tons of water and ocean floor. You know, kind of like dinosaur soft tissues and stuff, lasting for millions and millions of years.

Stories created in the minds and imaginations of men, concerning the unobservable and knowable events which occurred countless millions of years ago, which left these things behind. This as opposed to accounts of Holy Scripture telling a very different story about how these things came to be, thousands of years ago. Which others take it by faith, is the truth given to us by the prophets of God. Who also do not believe at all, that such evidences would still exist after countless millions of years. If they were, it would most certainly be due to catastrophic rapid burial processes of preservation, as buried fossils and other evidences are observed all over the world. Just how long such evidence would actually last, we do not know. Apparently opinions concerning such vary greatly.

[4WD]

Thank you readers for your replies.
Just wanted to share this with all the readers.

Can believers have faith in God & believe in Science at the same time?
Please allow me to humbly answer this question.

I didn't see your answer.

[4WD]

Does science believe in Resurrection of Christ??
Can science explain about the resurrection of Christ???
Does science believe in the miracles & supernatural happenings given in the Bible & in every era??
Will science believe that Prophet Elijah went up in Heaven in a Chariot of fire (2 Kings 2).

Those are not rational questions. Science is not a conscious being to either believe or not believe.  Science is a field of study.

You might ask the question, "Do scientists believe in the resurrection of Christ?"  The answer is some do, some do not.  But that has nothing to do with science per se.

You could also ask the question, "Do theologians believe in the resurrection of Christ?"  The answer is the same as for scientists.  Some do, some do not. 

[The Barbarian]

Does science believe in Resurrection of Christ?? Can science explain about the resurrection of Christ??? Does science believe in the miracles & supernatural happenings given in the Bible & in every era??
Will science believe that Prophet Elijah went up in Heaven in a Chariot of fire (2 Kings 2).

Science is too weak a method to assess the supernatural.  No, science can't do that.  But scientists can.

You might as well criticize plumbers because plumbing can't explain the resurrection.   Plumbing can't assess the supernatural.

But plumbers can.


 

[pppp]

Thank you 4WD for your replies.
The Question ...
Can believers have faith in God & believe in Science at the same time?
That's exactly what I had written about earlier.
Science is a different field of study & Scripture is The Word of God.
Believers can believe in both Scripture & Science,
but only up to a certain point.
As long as both science & Scripture have similar view points,
so its easy to believe in both,

but when there are views which are contradictory,
then a believer has to choose ....Will the believer, trust science or Scripture?
Again, the question arises ...Will a believer trust in what is seen or what is unseen?
Usually some people will trust, what they see.
But again the question arises ...what is the source behind what is seen or unseen?

 And then another question ...Will a person consider Scripture above Science or vice versa?
The answer to these questions arises in the word ... 'TRUST''
If a person will trust Science more, then he will believe more in it.
Wheareas if a believer will trust God more, then he will trust  Scripture more.
Just like in both the cases of how old the earth is & evolution.
The believer has two options,
either to choose between science or Scripture.

Scientists have been giving many theories which support evolution & how old the earth is & then other scientists have been contradicting them.
Whereas God is perfect, He is all knowing, so why would He contradict Himself.
He knows for certain what He does & so is sure of His works.
So anyone who respects & trusts God, will believe Scripture more than science.
For we live by faith, not by sight.
2 Corinthians 5:7

But blessed is the one who trusts in the Lord,
whose confidence is in him....
Jeremiah 17:7-8

Whoever gives heed to instruction prospers,
and blessed is the one who trusts in the Lord.
Proverbs 16:20


Scripture teaches believers about Elijah praying & calling down fire from the Heaven (1 Kings 18).
But since God was supporting Elijah, believers will believe & trust in the miracle of Elijah.
So what was seen, was supported by God.
So, the source that was God, was reliable & trustworthy.
And even if anything is unseen, if the source is God,
all those who trust in God will believe in it.
Like HOPE, MERCY, COMPASSION & the KINDNESS of God.
These can't be seen but they have been given by God,
so believers trust in them.

2 Corinthians 4:18
"So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."

Similarly, it has been seen that those who pray to Christ & take medicines healed faster than those who simply took medicines.
Then there are those people who could not be cured even with the best treatment, but when they prayed to God or Saints  or went to places where miracles performed by god take place, they were healed.
But science has no answer to this.

That is why generally, believers can believe in both science & Scripture at the same time.
But when there are contradictory views,
then those who have reverence for God should trust God more than science.
Because God is a God who is trustworthy, reliable, all knowing & supreme & can perform even what might seem impossible to others.

God made the earth & its inhabitants.
He made the sun & the moon,
the skies & the oceans.
And He has supreme control over them.
That is why in Heaven, His light will replace the sun & the moon.
And there will be no oceans.
This shows how perfectly God can create everything.

Science is interesting & gives valuable information about medicines, cures etc., but it is God who is truly supreme,
Amen.

[pppp]

Thank you The Barbarian for your reply.
As I wrote earlier, in  my posts, that science is interesting giving good information on cures, medicines, etc.,
but nothing & absolutely nothing can be greater than God.
God, His Word, His Miracles,
the graces which He bestowed on His Chosen,
through which they performed spectacular miracles & healings,
can't be replicated by anyone without the power of God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit,
Amen.
Thus proving that God & only God is the supreme creator & for believers, He is the True Living God,
Amen.

[The Barbarian]

A perfect example of deep time evolutionary faith in action, presented as scientific fact, concerning a great amount of detail regarding what was taking place 90,000,000 years ago. Based upon evidence buried deep under the ocean floor, containing all kinds of things evolutionary scientists tell us can last apparently for 90,000,000 years buried under the intense pressures of countless tons of water and ocean floor. You know, kind of like dinosaur soft tissues and stuff, lasting for millions and millions of years.

Physical chemists say that's the case for organic molecules. No one has ever found tissue that old.   Perhaps you don't know what "tissue" means in biology.   What do you think it means?

Stories created in the minds and imaginations of men, concerning the unobservable and knowable events which occurred countless millions of years ago, which left these things behind. This as opposed to accounts of Holy Scripture telling a very different story about how these things came to be, thousands of years ago.

Here, you've confused your interpretation of God's word with His actual word.

[Amo]

Physical chemists say that's the case for organic molecules. No one has ever found tissue that old.  Perhaps you don't know what "tissue" means in biology.  What do you think it means?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dinosaur_specimens_with_preserved_soft_tissue

List of dinosaur specimens with preserved soft tissue

https://www.history.com/articles/scientists-find-soft-tissue-in-75-million-year-old-dinosaur-bones

Scientists Find Soft Tissue in 75-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Bones

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-soft-tissue-recovered-eight-cretaceous-era-fossils-180955538/

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Recovered From Eight Cretaceous-Era Fossils

https://iknowdino.com/breaking-down-beyond-bones-soft-tissues-in-dinosaurs/

Breaking Down Beyond Bones: Soft Tissues in Dinosaurs

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/traces-dino-blood-soft-tissue-found-even-junk-bones

Traces of dino blood, soft tissue found even in junk bones

https://www.theverge.com/2015/6/9/8751897/dinosaur-cells-tissue-bones-75-million-years-old

Soft tissue found in 75 million-year-old dinosaur bones is a big deal for paleontology

https://dstri.org

Dedicated to locating and identifying dinosaur soft tissues from around the globe.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-found-in-the-strangest-place-17728

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Found in the Strangest Place

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REJk9cuXG98

Scientists Find SOFT, STRETCHY TISSUE In Dinosaur Bones!

https://crev.info/2025/01/dinosaur-original-collagen-confirmed/

Dinosaur Original Collagen Confirmed

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/dear-mummy-rare-fossil-reveals-common-dinosaurs-soft-tissue

Dear Mummy: Rare fossil reveals common dinosaur's soft tissue

https://www.snexplores.org/article/more-dinosaur-bones-yield-traces-blood-soft-tissue

More dinosaur bones yield traces of blood, soft tissue

https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/world/dinosaur-rib-195-million-year-old-collagen-history/

Ancient tissue found in 195 million-year-old dinosaur rib

https://www.discoverwildlife.com/dinosaurs/plesiosaur-scales

Prehistoric soft tissue from a 183-million-year-old dinosaur reveals what it really looked like - shocking scientists

I could of course go on and on.

[Amo]

Here, you've confused your interpretation of God's word with His actual word.

At least I can easily give or share my "interpretation" of what Holy Scripture plainly and exactly states. I've been waiting for any Christian evolutionist to do so for many years now. Including yourself, as I have asked for your and others on these boards, simple explanation of your interpretation. Some have tried to send me to other internet sites for someone else's explanation of their interpretation. Why can't or won't you simply state it here for us? Quote the scripture, and explain how it means what you believe. Shouldn't be that difficult.

[The Barbarian]

List of dinosaur specimens with preserved soft tissue

Wikipedia has confused organic matter with tissue.

Tissue is a group of cells organized to do a function.
What is tissue in the body? The body tissue is an aggregation of cells that function together and have a similar function.
https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/tissue

  Your links don't even have cells.   They just have bits of organic matter, which organic and physical chemists have shown to be able to last for millions of years under specific conditions.

I could of course go on and on.

Being wrong a lot isn't much difference than being wrong once.  It's not surprising; the term is very specific in biology, and if you weren't paying attention in high school, you probably missed it.  If you're skeptical, pick one of the links above, and I'll pull it up and show you.

[The Barbarian]

At least I can easily give or share my "interpretation" of what Holy Scripture plainly and exactly states.

If it was plain, the vast majority of Christians would agree on it.  But there is wide disagreement on those verses.   And you surely know that your personal interpretation is not the most common one among Christians.

I've been waiting for any Christian evolutionist to do so for many years now. Including yourself, as I have asked for your and others on these boards, simple explanation of your interpretation.

Several people have done just that over the years.  My interpretation?   Adam and Eve were real individuals who were the first humans to have been given living souls directly by God.   Since verses indicate that there were other humans around in the time of Adam (otherwise who would Cain be afraid of, and who would populate an entire city he built?)

[4WD]

If it was plain, the vast majority of Christians would agree on it.  But there is wide disagreement on those verses.   And you surely know that your personal interpretation is not the most common one among Christians.

Several people have done just that over the years.  My interpretation?   Adam and Eve were real individuals who were the first humans to have been given living souls directly by God.   Since verses indicate that there were other humans around in the time of Adam (otherwise who would Cain be afraid of, and who would populate an entire city he built?)

I agree with you almost completely with that.  The exception is that I would substitute spirits for souls as being given by God.  We are living souls, we have bodies produced by procreation and spirits given us by God.  All before Adam were living souls without having been given spirits by God.

[Amo]

Wikipedia has confused organic matter with tissue.

Tissue is a group of cells organized to do a function.
What is tissue in the body? The body tissue is an aggregation of cells that function together and have a similar function.
https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/tissue

  Your links don't even have cells.  They just have bits of organic matter, which organic and physical chemists have shown to be able to last for millions of years under specific conditions.

Being wrong a lot isn't much difference than being wrong once.  It's not surprising; the term is very specific in biology, and if you weren't paying attention in high school, you probably missed it.  If you're skeptical, pick one of the links above, and I'll pull it up and show you.

No one is claiming to have found living tissue in anything. What, are you denying that when things die, their tissues and all else remain until natural processes either totally consume them, or replace them as in the case of fossils? Get a grip man. Everyone refers to them as soft tissues, because they are the remains of once living soft tissues.

Physical Chemists haven't shown anything, but their continued undying faith in the religion of their choice. Unwilling to consider that they might be wrong about millions years, they simply created an unobserved or observable theory to save their religion. As though anything they simply throw together in a lab with exact purpose and intent to counteract evidence which seems to be against their theory, automatically represents exactly what happened naturally to preserve the problematic tissue remains being found. I call Bull*#$%!~. Along with many others who have already addressed this nonsense. No one has proved any natural method which could preserve soft tissue remains for millions of years.

https://crev.info/2018/09/fat-chance-evolutionists-push-date-soft-tissue-back-558-million-years/

Quoted article below from link above.

Fat Chance: Evolutionists Push Date of Soft Tissue Back 558 Million Years

The latest find of original molecules in a fossil should falsify long ages, but the discoverers use it to celebrate Darwinian evolution.

You remember the gasp by Lesley Stahl when Mary Schweitzer showed her soft tissue in a dinosaur bone in a 60 Minutes episode (CBS News, YouTube, 2010). "Impossible!", all the experts said, because dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. No origional material should remain; even the bones should have been replaced by rock. But with their own eyes, they were seeing evidence of red blood cells and stretchy soft tissues inside a T rex femur. Creationists who don't accept millions of years were saying, 'We told you so!' but their triumph was met with obdurate scorn. They watched with chagrin as all the evolutionists never even blinked. Darwinist reactions consisted of assertions by faith: 'Well, what do you know! Dinosaur tissue can last for millions of years!' Since then, numerous cases of soft tissue have been reported, some of them far older than Schweitzer's (see RSR list), yet the Darwin Party refuses to concede they were wrong.

Now, a fossil has been reported by paleontologists from the Australian National University (ANU) that could top them all. They found original molecules of fat (sterols and lipids) in specimens of Dickinsonia, a creature evolutionists insist is 558 million years old. Bobrovskiy et al published their results in Science Magazine 21 Sept 2018, "Ancient steroids establish the Ediacaran fossil Dickinsonia as one of the earliest animals."

Original biomolecules 558 million years old? Surely this would break the bank (read about "reckless drafts on the bank of time," 2 July 2007) and force Darwinians to give up on their beloved millions of years. There is absolutely no way any fossil would contain any original biological material that long, one would think, especially if the organism had been buried in marine sediments permeated with water. Most evolutionists themselves believed that until recently. Biological material decays over time, even when entombed in dry rock. Add to that the geological changes that should have occurred in 558 million years—continents rising and sinking, tectonic plates subducting, rocks alternately freezing and thawing, and subsequent life churning up the strata. The destructive processes on this dynamic planet should have accelerated the degradation of biological material in less than one million years, let alone 558 million! If dinosaur soft tissue rocked the Darwin boat, Ediacaran soft tissue should sink it. Right?

PhD in Spin Doctoring

Anyone who thinks so underestimates the faith of the Darwin Party. The world may never have witnessed better masters at turning falsifying evidence into triumphs for their worldview. Ignoring the problem of keeping fat molecules intact that long, they are spinning the story this way: (a) Cholesterol is only found in animals. Therefore, (b) Dickinsonia must have been an animal. Consequently, (c) They have found an ancestor to animals before the Cambrian Explosion. Darwin has been vindicated!

Believe it or not, this is exactly how the discoverers spun it. Watch how they do it in a video in the ANU press release, that could be used as a training model for turning defeat into victory. First we see co-author Jochen Brocks expressing dumbfounded surprise at his colleague's identification of cholesterol in the Dickinsonia fossil. He could not deny it:

Well when Ilya showed me the results, I just couldn't believe it. I immediately saw the significance. It was completely clear. the results are black and white; there's nothing to interpret.

But does he question the age of the fossil? Does he consider the problem of how original material could last for 558 million years?

These creatures in fact produced cholesterol, which is the hallmark of animals. It tells us that, in fact, this creature was our earliest ancestor.

Media Bandwagon

Instead of laughing this performance off the stage and hitting the gong, the media loved it! They embraced it, treating it like one of the best acts of Darwin's Got Talent they had ever seen! Watch the headlines and quotes in the secular media:

*Confirming the identity of early animals (Sacha Vignieri, Science). "This supports the idea that the Ediacaran biota may have been a precursor to the explosion of animal forms later observed in the Cambrian, about 500 million years ago."
*'Holy Grail' fossil mystery cracked – 558 million-year-old fat reveals earliest known animal (Chris Ciaccia, Fox News). "The fossil fat now confirms Dickinsonia as the oldest known animal fossil, solving a decades-old mystery that has been the Holy Grail of palaeontology."
*Fat from 558 million years ago reveals earliest known animal (Astrobiology Magazine). NASA regurgitated the press release without criticism, with its quote of Jochen Brocks saying, "The fossil fat molecules that we've found prove that animals were large and abundant 558 million years ago, millions of years earlier than previously thought."
*Ditto for Science Daily.
*Earliest known animal was a half-billion-year-old underwater blob (Alice Klein in New Scientist). "Now, Jochen Brocks at Australian National University and his colleagues have found fat molecules in 558 million-year-old fossils of Dickinsonia – a type of Ediacaran – that confirms it was an early animal.'"
*Earliest animal fossils are identified (Paul Rincon for the BBC News). "Scientists have identified the earliest known animal in the geological record."

The only reporters who showed a little bit of mild restraint wrote in Nature and Science:

World's first animal was a pancake-shaped prehistoric ocean dweller (Jeremy Rehm, Nature). Rehm says that proving that Dickinsonia are related to Cambrian animals "remains challenging," and admits that Ediacarans "remain a mysterious group whose relation to any living organisms is uncertain." He does not question the dates, however. "Under the right conditions, these chemicals can persist for millions of years, and so help to determine a fossilized organism's evolutionary relationships." That's an assertion with no references. How could he prove it or test it?

Chemical clues to the earliest animal fossils (Roger E. Summons and Douglas H. Erwin, Science). Erwin is one of the leading Darwinian experts on the Cambrian Explosion, fully aware of its challenges, so perhaps he considers it wise not to bang the victory drum too loudly. He doesn't call Dickinsonia an animal, and he doesn't call it an ancestor. But as a Darwin Party loyalist, he would never question the ages of the fossils. His last sentences are hopeful monsters of wishful thinking:

Because molecular clock estimates and morphological characters from fossils offer limited resolution, our best hope for unraveling the early history of animals and the affinities of the Ediacara biota lies with identification of biomarkers that allow us to differentiate specific metazoan clades, particularly among the bilaterians. Further refining the phylogenetic signals from biomarkers may also help to resolve the early history of animals during the Cryogenian and early Ediacaran. Moreover, the fossil-specific biomarker approach taken by Bobrovskiy et al. promises to yield many new insights into the fossilization processes that led to soft-tissue preservation across the animal kingdom and throughout geological time.

This guarded statement appears to indicate that Erwin knows about pervasive soft-tissue reports, and may be worried about how to explain them over "geological time."

Update 9/27/18: At Evolution News, paleontologist Günter Bechly has given a detailed look at all the evidence, explaining "Why Dickinsonia Was Most Probably Not an Ediacaran Animal." He goes through all the papers written about this creature over the last 20 years, including the recent paper by Bobrovskiy et al., showing that the claims by Jochen Brocks are overblown when all the morphological and taphonomic evidence is considered. The cholesterol evidence is not conclusive, he explains, because plants and microbes also produce these molecules.

Previously, hydrocarbon biomarkers for steranes had even been reported in 2.7-billion-year-old rocks (Brocks et al. 1999), but were later rejected as contaminations (French et al. 2015), so that Brocks had to submit a correction to his paper. This author is the very same Jochen Brocks whose lab is responsible for the new claim of cholesterol in Dickinsonia. Just saying. It should also be mentioned that in the other dickinsoniid Andiva, studied by Bobrovskiy (2018b), the steroid biomarkers were confounded by background signals and harder to interpret (Summons & Erwin 2018), which may be read as: they did not give the desired result of a metazoan nature.

Although Bechly does not question the age of the fossil, he does imply that original biomolecules should not last that long: "the found cholesteroid should neither have been preserved for more than a half billion years, nor should it be expected to be found in invertebrate animals at all, including an Ediacaran stem group representative."

Can the world's experts really follow Darwin like lemmings off a cliff? You just watched them do it. Brett Miller's latest cartoon (a CEH exclusive) illustrates the situation: Evidence be darned. Wherever Master Darwin leads, we follow with eyes closed just like his!

Here are a few videos to watch on the subject. Vessels cells and more.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIy7x6snXAE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgWR5Dg3NvY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApFKNhZxP-E


 

[The Barbarian]

I agree with you almost completely with that.  The exception is that I would substitute spirits for souls as being given by God.  We are living souls, we have bodies produced by procreation and spirits given us by God.  All before Adam were living souls without having been given spirits by God.

I'm referring to Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

I agree with you almost completely with that.  The exception is that I would substitute spirits for souls as being given by God.  We are living souls, we have bodies produced by procreation and spirits given us by God.  All before Adam were living souls without having been given spirits by God.

Souls are essentially material in all living things but man.  When other living things die, their souls die with it.  God directly gives each of us a living spiritual soul that makes all the difference.  The spirit is not physical.  As Jesus says, a spirit has no body.  That is what makes us capable of eternal life.

[The Barbarian]

No one is claiming to have found living tissue in anything.

Scientists don't claim to have found tissue at all.   Tissues are, as you see, groups of cells organized for a function.  They didn't even find cells.   They found fossils of cells and tissues, some of which retained bits of organic molecules.

It turns out, what we have learned from fossil organic molecules has a potential use:

}In a new study published in ACS Central Science, a team from MIT report on the behavior of small-molecule mimics of collagen peptides using experimental and computational methods.4 In particular, they studied the interactions between acyl groups, which each contain a carbon atom double bonded to an oxygen atom. These interactions occur between the lone pair of electrons (n) on the oxygen atom of one peptide bond and the antibonding orbital (π*) of the carbonyl group in an adjacent peptide bond. This electron sharing helps stabilize the peptide bond, making it less likely to be attacked by water molecules. Based on this, the group hypothesized that engagement of a π* orbital in an n→π* interaction could be what protects peptide bonds from hydrolysis. Using a combination of molecular torsion balance and computational tools, they found that each acyl group partially shares its electrons with a neighboring acyl group. These results suggest that such interactions protect every peptide bond in a collagen triple helix from hydrolysis, allowing the structure to stay intact. The authors note that such insights into the stability mechanisms of collagen can inform the design of more long-lasting biomaterials.

Physical Chemists haven't shown anything, but their continued undying faith in the religion of their choice.

No, what they've found are reaction rates for various things.   This is how we know that some organic materials can last for millions of years in the right conditions.

YE creationists, unwilling to consider that they might be wrong about the age of the earth simply denied  observable facts to save their religion.

 

[Amo]

If it was plain, the vast majority of Christians would agree on it.  But there is wide disagreement on those verses.  And you surely know that your personal interpretation is not the most common one among Christians.

Several people have done just that over the years.  My interpretation?  Adam and Eve were real individuals who were the first humans to have been given living souls directly by God.  Since verses indicate that there were other humans around in the time of Adam (otherwise who would Cain be afraid of, and who would populate an entire city he built?)

Believing what a statement simply says, is not an interpretation. Yes, you add to scripture countless millions of years of deep time evolution conjured up in the imaginations of men, and declare it part of the actual creation process, which God apparently left out when divinely inspiring Moses. You are simply adding your own story to scripture, which contradicts what the creation account plainly states, which it also backs up all throughout the Holy Scriptures. All the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles themsleves speaking of the creation account and flood events as historical realities, when they refer to them. Deep time evolutionists think themselves to be wise, but Holy Scripture depicts them in a very different manner.

[Amo]

Scientists don't claim to have found tissue at all.   Tissues are, as you see, groups of cells organized for a function.  They didn't even find cells.   They found fossils of cells and tissues, some of which retained bits of organic molecules.

It turns out, what we have learned from fossil organic molecules has a potential use:

}In a new study published in ACS Central Science, a team from MIT report on the behavior of small-molecule mimics of collagen peptides using experimental and computational methods.4 In particular, they studied the interactions between acyl groups, which each contain a carbon atom double bonded to an oxygen atom. These interactions occur between the lone pair of electrons (n) on the oxygen atom of one peptide bond and the antibonding orbital (π*) of the carbonyl group in an adjacent peptide bond. This electron sharing helps stabilize the peptide bond, making it less likely to be attacked by water molecules. Based on this, the group hypothesized that engagement of a π* orbital in an n→π* interaction could be what protects peptide bonds from hydrolysis. Using a combination of molecular torsion balance and computational tools, they found that each acyl group partially shares its electrons with a neighboring acyl group. These results suggest that such interactions protect every peptide bond in a collagen triple helix from hydrolysis, allowing the structure to stay intact. The authors note that such insights into the stability mechanisms of collagen can inform the design of more long-lasting biomaterials.

No, what they've found are reaction rates for various things.   This is how we know that some organic materials can last for millions of years in the right conditions.

YE creationists, unwilling to consider that they might be wrong about the age of the earth simply denied  observable facts to save their religion.

Stick your head back in the sand bro. Deny all you want. Nevertheless there are countless scientific articles by scientific institutions and scientists on both sides of the isle, addressing soft tissue in dinosaurs and other animals from millions of years ago. Play your word games. They mean nothing. There is an issue, regarding the remains of tissue. Stick your head in the sand and ignore or deny it if you will. 

[The Barbarian]

Believing what a statement simply says, is not an interpretation.

If it were simple, then all Christians would agree on what it says.  But most Christians don't accept your interpretation.

Yes, you add to scripture countless millions of years

Scripture isn't about how old the Earth is.   You added that to scripture to make it more acceptable to you.

which God apparently left out when divinely inspiring Moses.

He left out ribosomes and neutrons, too. For some reason, He seems to have decided that wasn't important to the message.  Just as He didn't insert how old the Earth is.

You are simply adding your own story to scripture, which adds all the things you wish were in it, but aren't in it.
 

[The Barbarian]

Stick your head back in the sand bro. Deny all you want. Nevertheless there are countless scientific articles by scientific institutions and scientists on both sides of the isle, addressing soft tissue in dinosaurs and other animals from millions of years ago. Play your word games. They mean nothing. There is an issue, regarding the remains of tissue.

As you learned, they are about organic molecules surviving millions of years in fossils, not tissue.    And as you now see, physical chemists have shown that such molecules can survive for millions of years in the right environments.   

 Stick your head in the sand and ignore or deny it if you will. 

[4WD]

Believing what a statement simply says, is not an interpretation.

Anything that you think, say, explain, or believe about a word, phrase or statement beyond quoting it exactly as given is, by definition, an interpretation.

In the present discussion, the word "day" used in the Genesis account of creation is certainly one such word. In the very first use of that word in Genesis 1:5, the word "day" appears twice. It does not mean the same thing in both cases. It is by interpretation that the reader attaches a different meaning to the word in the two different occurrences.

And that is particularly the situation when the statement is a translation from the original language in which it was presented.

[4WD]

I'm referring to Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

There are differences of opinion for what "the breath of life" is in that verse.  But my point is that the translation/interpretation of the Hebrew word nephesh as living soul is the same for man in Genesis 2:7 as it is in genesis 1:21, 24. There is no distinction between the two indicated for man and animals.

The difference between man and the rest of the animals is indicated in verses 26 and 27 where is says that man is made, created, in God's own image.  But even there it does not specify in what manner that occurred. It is only much later in scripture that image can be identified as the spirit of man. It is the case that when speaking of man, the words soul and spirit are used interchangeably in both the OT and the NT.  Not so with animals.

Souls are essentially material in all living things but man.  When other living things die, their souls die with it.  God directly gives each of us a living spiritual soul that makes all the difference.  The spirit is not physical.  As Jesus says, a spirit has no body.  That is what makes us capable of eternal life.

The word "soul" expresses what were are, namely living beings or living creatures.  The word "spirit" expresses something that man has; specifically, something that God has given man (Eccl 12:7) or formed in man (Zech 12:1) that is absent in the rest of the animal kingdom.  As another here has stated, animals and man are souls, i.e., living creatures; both have bodies. Man is a soul which has both a body and a spirit.

[The Barbarian]

Yes.

[Amo]

If it were simple, then all Christians would agree on what it says.  But most Christians don't accept your interpretation.

More word games. Accepting what scripture simply states is not interpretation. Most all translations seek to most accurately convey the message being translated, as the original language intended. And every translation simply states that the world was created in six days, with mornings and evenings. Unless you know of some otherwise, I do not. Translation and interpretation are two different things when it comes to preserving original intent of writers.

https://uasvbible.org/2026/06/13/why-must-bible-translators-distinguish-translation-from-interpretation/

Quote below from link above. Where full article may be read.

Why Must Bible Translators Distinguish Translation From Interpretation?

Translation and Interpretation Perform Different Tasks

Translation and interpretation are closely related, but they are not identical. Translation transfers the wording of a source-language text into a receptor language with the greatest accuracy that differences between languages permit. Interpretation explains the meaning communicated by that wording in its grammatical, historical, literary, and theological context. A translator must understand the source sufficiently to make responsible linguistic choices, yet he must not place every interpretive conclusion directly into the translated text. When interpretation is inserted too freely, the reader no longer receives the inspired writer's words in another language. He receives the translator's explanation of those words.

The distinction protects the authority of Scripture. Jehovah inspired the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek writings, not the explanatory preferences of later translators. Second Timothy 3:16 identifies Scripture itself as inspired by God, while Second Peter 1:21 explains that men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. The translator therefore stands under the text. His responsibility is to represent what the inspired writer wrote, preserving meaningful wording, relationships between clauses, repeated terms, and genuine ambiguities wherever understandable English allows. The interpreter then studies that translated wording to determine what the writer meant. Confusing these stages gives a translation committee authority that belongs to the inspired text.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/translation

NOUN

translations

the rendering of something into another language or into one's own from another language.

a version of such a rendering.
a new translation of Plato.

change or conversion to another form, appearance, etc.; transformation.
a swift translation of thought into action.

the act or process of translating.
the state of being translated.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/interpretation

NOUN

interpretations

the act of interpreting; elucidation; explication.
This writer's work demands interpretation.

an explanation of the meaning of another's artistic or creative work; an elucidation. an interpretation of a poem.

a conception of another's behavior.
a charitable interpretation of his tactlessness.

a way of interpreting.
the rendering of a dramatic part, music, etc., so as to bring out the meaning, or to indicate one's particular conception of it.

I say again, believing what most if not all bible translations simply state about the creation account is not interpretation. Adding content that is not simply stated anywhere in that account and or scripture at all, is interpretation. Which is what Christian evolutionists do.

Scripture isn't about how old the Earth is.  You added that to scripture to make it more acceptable to you.

The pot calling the kettle black. I added nothing to scripture to make it say anything. Scripture does record genealogies back to Adam, by which some have made at the very least, ball park estimates of the age as described by the Genesis account. Which begins with the words, In the beginning. Evolutionists are of the ones who have added countless millions or billions of years to the scenario, which are most certainly not to be found anywhere in Holy Scripture at all.

He left out ribosomes and neutrons, too. For some reason, He seems to have decided that wasn't important to the message.  Just as He didn't insert how old the Earth is.

Very frustrating isn't it? When someone is not bound by the parameters you wish they were. Especially as an all wise, all knowing "scientist".

You are simply adding your own story to scripture, which adds all the things you wish were in it, but aren't in it.

More pot calling the kettle black. I can quote scripture supporting or stating everything I believe. You will not and cannot quote scripture supporting deep time evolution at all. Only your interpretation of scripture will allow for such. So be it.

[Amo]

As you learned, they are about organic molecules surviving millions of years in fossils, not tissue.    And as you now see, physical chemists have shown that such molecules can survive for millions of years in the right environments. 

 Stick your head in the sand and ignore or deny it if you will. 

I've learned nothing from you, save your continued insistence that everybody state or phrase things the way you want, or they are apparently ignorant. Whether they are fellow evolutionary scientists or institutions or not as well. Neither soft tissues nor organic molecules they are composed of, could last millions of years, but in the imaginations of those who wish it to be so. This is not of course to even address the imaginations alone, which speculate millions and billions of years to begin with.

https://www.ou.edu/news/articles/2026/july/soft-tissue-preserved-in-450-million-year-old-fossil

Why don't you write to the publishers of the article at the above link, and tell them to stop using the term soft tissue, and all the other scientists who have done so countless times already? 

[Amo]

Anything that you think, say, explain, or believe about a word, phrase or statement beyond quoting it exactly as given is, by definition, an interpretation.

In the present discussion, the word "day" used in the Genesis account of creation is certainly one such word. In the very first use of that word in Genesis 1:5, the word "day" appears twice. It does not mean the same thing in both cases. It is by interpretation that the reader attaches a different meaning to the word in the two different occurrences.

And that is particularly the situation when the statement is a translation from the original language in which it was presented.

Baloney! If I say I am 65. Then someone else reads that, and concludes or states that I am, that is not interpretation. It is simply taking what I stated for exactly what I meant by it.

[4WD]

Baloney! If I say I am 65. Then someone else reads that, and concludes or states that I am, that is not interpretation. It is simply taking what I stated for exactly what I meant by it.

I you say that to someone who doesn't speak English, then someone must interpret it for him.  And if an English-speaking person reads that and then concludes or suggests anything other than the simple fact of you being 65, such as relating that to a time of retirement, that is interpretation.

Thus, as I said, anything beyond the quotation, "I am 65", is interpretation. And it could even be extrapolation.

[Amo]

I you say that to someone who doesn't speak English, then someone must interpret it for him.  And if an English-speaking person reads that and then concludes or suggests anything other than the simple fact of you being 65, such as relating that to a time of retirement, that is interpretation.

Thus, as I said, anything beyond the quotation, "I am 65", is interpretation. And it could even be extrapolation.

Pretty much the exact point that I was making. Believing what basically all translated creation accounts simply say, is not interpreting them. Adding the idea of millions or billions of years to the scenario, making the days possibly extremely long periods of time, is. Presuming millions or billions of years before the creation week isn't interpretation, it is completely extra biblical content or speculation.