First proteins, now DNA found in dinosaur bones?! Deep time is dead (or at least in very poor health ;-)

[mecca]

I remember watching Jurassic Park years ago and the scientific establishment at that time took delight in pointing out that DNA couldn’t possibly last that long.

Like I pointed out, contamination could be present, it's entirely possible and actually more likely that the DNA is from a microbe rather than the dinosaur itself. These new findings are not confirmed because the DNA has degraded too much to actually sequence it and that's why many scientists are skeptical whether it's dinosaur DNA or not. They can't outright say that it's dinosaur DNA because it's not discernible. Many of the past claims of dino DNA were found to have been the result of contamination. The likelihood is pretty low, but it is technically possible that DNA can survive in specifically unique conditions for longer than people initially theorized. It doesn't relate to evolution nor atheism nor theism though.

Surely you meant a theory?

A scientific theory is explicitly factual. The word theory in science is quite different from the word theory in colloquial / layman's terms. In fact, they're practically opposites. Evolution is a fact in and of itself, and the theory of evolution is comprised of more facts and explanations about the mechanisms surrounding evolution and how it functions. A scientific theory can never be unfactual... if there's no facts, then it's not a theory.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Like I pointed out, contamination could be present, it's entirely possible and actually more likely that the DNA is from a microbe rather than the dinosaur itself. These new findings are not confirmed because the DNA has degraded too much to actually sequence it and that's why many scientists are skeptical whether it's dinosaur DNA or not. They can't outright say that it's dinosaur DNA because it's not discernible. Many of the past claims of dino DNA were found to have been the result of contamination. The likelihood is pretty low, but it is technically possible that DNA can survive in specifically unique conditions for longer than people initially theorized. It doesn't relate to evolution nor atheism nor theism though.

A scientific theory is explicitly factual. The word theory in science is quite different from the word theory in colloquial / layman's terms. In fact, they're practically opposites. Evolution is a fact in and of itself, and the theory of evolution is comprised of more facts and explanations about the mechanisms surrounding evolution and how it functions. A scientific theory can never be unfactual... if there's no facts, then it's not a theory.

I’m sure as one scientist to another (if only by qualifications) you and I are both aware of the difference between hypotheses, theories and facts (or laws). Both Creation and Evolution fall outside the bounds of scientifically verifiable or falsifiable claims and are therefore both metaphysical. In reviewing evidence for either proposal, the evidence must be reviewed on balance of probability. This is the approach I would advocate for either evolutionary or creationist scientists coming at the evidence.

Each piece should be examined (and cross examined). A picture of likelihood should emerge which might lead someone to say, I feel that the weight of evidence supports x, but that is as far as one might reasonably venture in terms of claiming the “facts” are on their side.

p.s. I amended the title of this thread to reflect this observation ;-)

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Aside from the difficulties of abiogenesis, there are even deeper issues. Perhaps the deepest is akin to the linguistic challenge of the encoding and decoding of information:-

A DEEP CONCEPTUAL CHALLENGE

“...A third philosophical dimension to the origin of life relates to the origin of the coding and information processing that is central to all life-forms.

This is well described by the mathematician David Berlinski, who points out that there is a rich narrative drama surrounding our current understanding of the cell. The genetic message in DNA is duplicated in replication and then copied from DNA to RNA in transcription. Following this there is translation whereby the message from RNA is conveyed to the amino acids, and finally the amino acids are assembled into proteins. The cell’s two fundamentally different structures of information management and chemical activity are coordinated by the universal genetic code.

The remarkable nature of this phenomenon becomes apparent when we highlight the word code. Berlinski writes: By itself, a code is familiar enough, an arbitrary mapping or a system of linkages between two discrete combinatorial objects.

The Morse code, to take a familiar example, coordinates dashes and dots with letters of the alphabet. To note that codes are arbitrary is to note the distinction between a code and a purely physical connection between two objects. To note that codes embody mappings is to embed the concept of a code in mathematical language. To note that codes reflect a linkage of some sort is to return the concept of a code to its human uses.

This in turn leads to the big question: “Can the origins of a system of coded chemistry be explained in a way that makes no appeal whatever to the kinds of facts that we otherwise invoke to explain codes and languages, systems of communication, the impress of ordinary words on the world of matter?”5

Carl Woese, a leader in origin-of-life studies, draws attention to the philosophically puzzling nature of this phenomenon. Writing in the journal RNA, he says: “The coding, mechanistic, and evolutionary facets of the problem now became separate issues. The idea that gene expression, like gene replication, was underlain by some fundamental physical principle was gone.” Not only is there no underlying physical principle, but the very existence of a code is a mystery. “The coding rules (the dictionary of codon assignments) are known. Yet they provide no clue as to why the code exists and why the mechanism of translation is what it is.” He frankly admits that we do not know anything about the origin of such a system. “The origins of translation, that is before it became a true decoding mechanism, are for now lost in the dimness of the past, and I don’t wish to engage here in hand-waving speculations as to what polymerization processes might have preceded and given rise to it, or to speculate on the origins of tRNA, tRNA charging systems or the genetic code.”6

Paul Davies highlights the same problem. He observes that most theories of biogenesis have concentrated on the chemistry of life, but “life is more than just complex chemical reactions. The cell is also an information storing, processing and replicating system. We need to explain the origin of this information, and the way in which the information processing machinery came to exist.” He emphasizes the fact that a gene is nothing but a set of coded instructions with a precise recipe for manufacturing proteins. Most important, these genetic instructions are not the kind of information you find in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics; rather, they constitute semantic information. In other words, they have a specific meaning.

These instructions can be effective only in a molecular environment capable of interpreting the meaning in the genetic code. The origin question rises to the top at this point. “The problem of how meaningful or semantic information can emerge spontaneously from a collection of mindless molecules subject to blind and purposeless forces presents a deep conceptual challenge.”7

~ Anthony Flew, There is a God

 

[shankara]

To me it's pretty clear that there is something more than random chance behind all of this. On the other hand whether there was direct creation or some kind of guided evolution is a mystery to me. Of course I think the idea of a literal seven days seems a little bit tending towards an extreme of literalism.

The thing that really puzzles me is where consciousness comes from. How did it begin? Was it always individual, or was it once collective?

 

[Corvus Metus]

Can someone explain to me why evolution is a problem? Unless your dead set on believing a literal account of Genesis, believing in it doesn't contradict Christian doctrine.

 

[Todd]

Can someone explain to me why evolution is a problem? Unless your dead set on believing a literal account of Genesis, believing in it doesn't contradict Christian doctrine.

Thank you! The Bible was not written as a scientific text.

 

[Wigi]

Can someone explain to me why evolution is a problem? Unless your dead set on believing a literal account of Genesis, believing in it doesn't contradict Christian doctrine.

The problem with evolutionary science isn't really evolution in itself but the propagandist of scientism like Dawkins and Sam Harris who promotes it as something that oppose religion and God. They present it like a materialistic ideology backed by white gloves so it's understandable if people who are more in line with creationism still hold a radical stance towards evolution. The problem lies on those who wage a war on God and creationism because 'I haz science and everyone agrees with me'.

 

[Cintra]

The problem with science is that it keeps changing its mind.

 

[Todd]

The problem with science is that it keeps changing its mind.

The problem with religion is just the opposite!
(Tradition does not equal truth)

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

The problem with science is that it keeps changing its mind.

It's not wrong to change your mind when you find more accurate information. Science goes wrong when it confines itself to a subset of reality with ideas like "logical positivism" which redefines "true" as "testable, verifiable and repeatable" - some things might well be true and yet impossible to test, verify or repeat!!!

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Billions of dead creatures are buried in mud layers laid down by catastrophic flooding in the middle of America (and the rest of the world) and unbelievers and some Christians are blinded by the world’s story about how they got there. This is true even when their recent catastrophic burial through flooding is made obvious by soft tissues still found in their bones, oftentimes even found unmineralized. I was one of the Christians who was blinded to this truth, then humbling myself under Scripture and a few trips to the bonebeds led me to believe that Genesis 1-11 was real history. My life has been different ever since. When I realized that God's Word was really true--like beyond faith, grounded-in-real-history true--my head became more aligned to my heart. It was like being born again, "again." Thus, realizing the real story about dinosaurs--their recent creation and demise through judgment by the Flood--greatly strengthened my faith.

Jesus regarded the Creation and Flood accounts as real history, not metaphor (Matthew 19:6 and 24:37-39). As a person who claimed to be God, Jesus was either 100% correct about these accounts, or he was deluded or lying and was 100% wrong. Jesus was present at Creation itself (Genesis 1, John 1, and Colossians 1:16: “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.”). Jesus the Creator affirmed the historicity of Genesis. We should too.

Human history tapers fast between 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Isn’t it interesting that all this history runs out about the same time as Noah’s Flood? Beyond this time, we all must “fill in the blanks” with either secular ideas or God’s truth, including what Jesus said about Creation and the Flood. If what Jesus said about the Flood was true, and we believe that it is, we can view the dinosaur devastation as clear evidence of God’s judgement on earth, for “God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:12). These dinosaur bones attest to the history of Genesis (Creation and the Flood, which Jesus clearly endorsed) and the Fall, which Jesus came to redeem us from. These dinosaur bonebeds across America testify to the Flood Jesus talked about and they confirm the very fallen world that He came to save. Jesus was present when beautiful, magnificent Behemoth was created. This creature was so massive that God called him the "chief of all his ways" (or "first in rank of all created works"). This same creature is now found in mud layers, attesting to God's judgement of the "world that then was."

So yes, the dinosaur bones we see today attest to Jesus as Creator, the judgement of the Flood that wiped them out, and the fact that He is coming again: "But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matthew 24:37-39).
See our free dinosaur resources and videos here: www.genesisapologetics.com/dinosaurs

Blessings,

Dan A. Biddle, Ph.D.
President

 

[Corvus Metus]

I'll still never understand why so many evangelical Christians are so against the theories of evolution or the idea the earth is very old.

In the case of the former, it really wouldn't matter if our original ancestors evolved from apes or we were created from the dirt... Our likeness in the image of God is our immortal souls... Not our physical shell.

Young earth is also only an issue if you believe a literally account in Genesis, but I'm not sure why you would, but not believe in a literally account of Revelations, complete with monsters raising from the sea.

 

[Cintra]

I'll still never understand why so many evangelical Christians are so against the theories of evolution or the idea the earth is very old.

In the case of the former, it really wouldn't matter if our original ancestors evolved from apes or we were created from the dirt... Our likeness in the image of God is our immortal souls... Not our physical shell.

Young earth is also only an issue if you believe a literally account in Genesis, but I'm not sure why you would, but not believe in a literally account of Revelations, complete with monsters raising from the sea.

That's a really good point.

Proper beast, horns and everything, or it isn't the real apocalypse.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I'll still never understand why so many evangelical Christians are so against the theories of evolution or the idea the earth is very old.

In the case of the former, it really wouldn't matter if our original ancestors evolved from apes or we were created from the dirt... Our likeness in the image of God is our immortal souls... Not our physical shell.

Young earth is also only an issue if you believe a literally account in Genesis, but I'm not sure why you would, but not believe in a literally account of Revelations, complete with monsters raising from the sea.

Having researched both Creation and studied Evolution at degree level, I would simply say this:-

Neither theory can be proved beyond reasonable doubt (as is the case in a criminal trial) because we only have the after effects of an untestable beginning. Both theories are therefore metaphysical and cannot be classed as empirical science.

Given that, I started to take the view that you must approach the question on “balance of probability”. As with any trial, you have witnesses for both the prosecution and the defence. Don’t shy away from evidence, just note it and gradually build up a sense of the strength of each case. With every piece of data, there are often a range of interpretations. Beware of confirmation bias and be honest with yourself. That’s what I try to do anyway.

 

[Vixy]

Another great thread from you, Red! Stay Strong!