Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc

[EENGELBRECHT]

Nova Science Now on PBS broadcast a story about a Dr. Schweitzer whose team discovered soft tissue in a T-Rex bone from the American west and is also making important discoveries of soft tissue structures from dinosaur bones in Madagascar. The T-Rex bones were considered to be 65 million years old. Possible preservation of soft tissue was immediately rejected. However . . .

Here's the link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01.html

I had read an article on this earlier in the year but was pleasantly surprised to see it broadcast on PBS. Unlike the article, PBS avoided any presentation of the Creation/Evolution debate that naturally sprang up because of the study/discovery. At this point paleontologists are saying that fossilization must occur in ways that they have never considered before (largely because their theories prevented other possibilities). Fascinating stuff.

In Christ,
EE

[pilgrimpriest]

Nova Science Now on PBS broadcast a story about a Dr. Schweitzer whose team discovered soft tissue in a T-Rex bone from the American west and is also making important discoveries of soft tissue structures from dinosaur bones in Madagascar. The T-Rex bones were considered to be 65 million years old. Possible preservation of soft tissue was immediately rejected. However . . .

Here's the link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01.html

I had read an article on this earlier in the year but was pleasantly surprised to see it broadcast on PBS. Unlike the article, PBS avoided any presentation of the Creation/Evolution debate that naturally sprang up because of the study/discovery. At this point paleontologists are saying that fossilization must occur in ways that they have never considered before (largely because their theories prevented other possibilities). Fascinating stuff.

In Christ,
EE

This is old news... but it is indeed ground-breaking and timely as now, with the ability to map the human genome, the dinosaur's genetic record can be mapped and will fill in many blanks in the process of their evolution. This process, as posited by paleontologists like Jack Horner and Dr. Robert Bakker (who is also a Pentecostal preacher!), may well have been relatively quite rapid as with the horned dinosaurs of the late Cretaceous period. Most recently, the fossil record has unearthed evidence of Triassic dinosaurs co-existing with those in the Cretaceous period. This has changed the scientific view of the process dramatically and may shrink their distance in time from an evolutionary perspective. It still doesn't account for the process of Pre-mesozoic and Mesozoic fossilization versus the animals and hominids of the Pleistocene period. IOW, why is one type mineralized and the other in its organic state? Still a conundrum for "Young-Earth" proponents. But this "soft tissue" discovery has many paleontologists going to their saws and looking for more evidence of possibly overlooked samples.

I think the view that paleontologists are radical evolutionists is overplayed in the media. There is still so much they don't know... and by their own admission! It is like putting together an extremely complex puzzle with billions of pieces.  Most of the really ground-breaking discoveries and the subsequent revisions in taxonomies have only occurred in the last 25 years. Until recently, most paleontologists were schooled strictly in geology. Now, with the finding of "soft-tissue," a whole new world of paleo-biology is opening up.

The Creed and the Scriptures never demanded of us the "how" of creation, only the "Who" of creation. A view I share with Dr. Bakker who my son and I hope to be digging with next summer in Wyoming. "O LORD, how manifold are thy works! In wisdom hast thou made them all..."

Fr. Bob

[EENGELBRECHT]

The Creed and the Scriptures never demanded of us the "how" of creation, only the "Who" of creation.

Do the Scriptures say nothing about the "how" of creation?

In Christ,
EE

[janielou13]

The Holy Trinity loved Creation into being, and continues to love it into being even in this very moment,,,,,,,,,,,, that's the "how" of the matter.  The Father, the Eternal Logos, the Eternal Enlivening Spirit in undivided Unity now and forever, age upon ages.

[pilgrimpriest]

The Creed and the Scriptures never demanded of us the "how" of creation, only the "Who" of creation.

Do the Scriptures say nothing about the "how" of creation?

In Christ,
EE

They do indeed! But as a record-writer of the events wasn't available until at least Day 6, it's hard to call it an "eyewitness" account.  Still, the progression of the story of creation is mirrored by the prevalent theories of the progression of life: sea creatures, creeping things, birds, cattle, etc. As to the structure of mitochondria from which we might get the genome of the T-Rex... silence. I don't think we need to fall for the either/or demands of the radical evolutionists. The Orthodox have historically been somewhat ambivalent on the matter. Our general reaction to new discoveries is usually, "Of course, God is giving you new insight into what we already know about life--it's a fearful and wonderful mystery!"

"...all things were made through him [the Word], and without him was not anything made that was made." (John 1:3)  Now my pajamas, it can be argued, are ultimately from God--through Whom all things were (and are) made--but they went through a few steps between the cotton plant in the field and my considerable frame. How that happened is of some interest; but if that happened without the gin, the mill, the sewers and the sellers it would be miraculous and unlikely and worthy of serious investigation. For me, that is what science is about and without the involvement of believing people like the monk Gregor Mendel (the father of genetics), we might only now being asking those serious questions worthy of investigation in the dust of others.  Although it is impossible to scientifically isolate the "first cause" in creation (God), we can observe the processes, test theories, come to conclusions and then start again. Good science left to the radical evolutionists is leaving the matter to a quasi-fundamentalist sect where there will be no room for alternate theories: because their faith compels them to refuse to believe what they see right in front of them. This kind of attitude explains the new "orthodoxy" concerning Global Warming.  We dare not assume the exact same posture on the other end of the spectrum.

Psalm 104 is a wonderful faith-filled scientific observation of the processes of life in the world. I commend it to you.

Fr. Bob

[EENGELBRECHT]

Still, the progression of the story of creation is mirrored by the prevalent theories of the progression of life: sea creatures, creeping things, birds, cattle, etc.

Yes, I can see correspondence there. However, light is created first, then plants, then "lights" (sun, moon, and stars) come later. Genesis still seems out of step with modern theories about origins.

In Christ,
EE

[pilgrimpriest]

Still, the progression of the story of creation is mirrored by the prevalent theories of the progression of life: sea creatures, creeping things, birds, cattle, etc.

Yes, I can see correspondence there. However, light is created first, then plants, then "lights" (sun, moon, and stars) come later. Genesis still seems out of step with modern theories about origins.

In Christ,
EE

Ah, but take it from the world's worst gardener: you'd be surprised what can grow in the absence of sunlight!

Fr. Bob

[MaddogLutheran]

Still, the progression of the story of creation is mirrored by the prevalent theories of the progression of life: sea creatures, creeping things, birds, cattle, etc.

Yes, I can see correspondence there. However, light is created first, then plants, then "lights" (sun, moon, and stars) come later. Genesis still seems out of step with modern theories about origins.

Never noticed this before, but ... how does a literal creationist explain the initial light source, then?  Earth was created first, illuminated by some unidentified light source, and then at some later point the sun?  Why bother creating the sun if you've already got a light source?  The Fall corrupting creation doesn't explain this.  Where are Copernicus and Galileo when you need them?   

I apologize if I sound persnickity, as I'm not really out to debunk anything.  Just my long-standing concern with confusing the Bible with a science textbook.  They're both given an account of the same thing from different perspectives.  I like Fr. Bob's Orthodox train of thought here.

Sterling Spatz

[EENGELBRECHT]

Never noticed this before, but ... how does a literal creationist explain the initial light source, then?  Earth was created first, illuminated by some unidentified light source, and then at some later point the sun?  Why bother creating the sun if you've already got a light source? 

Genesis describes the creation in terms of environments (first three days) and then things that inhabit the environments (next three days).  So light/dark is an environment for the heavenly bodies, air/water is environment for birds/fish, and land/plants become the environment for land animals.

I wouldn't regard the account as a science textbook. I don't think its trying to be that (ancient writings don't fit with our literary genres). I would prefer to read Genesis and interpret it on its own terms rather than try to measure it by modern standards of literature or science.

The simplest reading seems to be that the text describes God, through His Word, creating all things over six days of time. After that one has to decide whether to take this account at face value.

In Christ,
EE

[Brian Stoffregen]

Never noticed this before, but ... how does a literal creationist explain the initial light source, then?  Earth was created first, illuminated by some unidentified light source, and then at some later point the sun?  Why bother creating the sun if you've already got a light source?  The Fall corrupting creation doesn't explain this.  Where are Copernicus and Galileo when you need them?   

Although I'm not Copernicus or Galileo, the explanation I offer is that on those rare mornings when it's still dark when I get up in the morning, I see light before I see the sun. The sun appears later. The ancients were recording the universe as they experienced it. Similarly, the refer to the moon as the "lesser light." That is how they (and we) experience it, but scientifically, it gives no light, but only reflects the light from the sun.

There is also, I believe, an intentional inner structure of the six days. Day 1 is connected to Day 4; Day 2 to Day 5; and Day 3 to Day 6. While are six days of creation, there are eight times that God creates (both Day 3 and Day 6 contain two "God said" -- but eight days would mess up the seventh day rest).

A more scientific explanation I've heard is that the big bang or whatever it was that formed the sun, stars, and planets, probably produced a whole lot of light before the energies were collected into the different heavenly bodies. I don't think that this was part of the ancients' thinking when writing this creation poem.

[BeornBjornson]

A Jewish rabbi with whom I and some other pastors were taking a seminar interpreted the Light of Day one as God's Light, coming from God Himself.  Seemed a short jump for me to go from that to John 1:4-5 "The life was the Light of men.  The Light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it" and Jesus in John 9 "I am the Light of the world."
Ken Kimball

[JMOtterman]

Do you believe that God is still creating?  Everyday a new species pops up even as an old one seems to go extinct except that a fish that is found in Africa was thought to be extinct these last 60 million years.

My torah reads Genesis just a little different than our Christian understanding of creation.  Most Christian Bibles start  "In the Beginning God Created..." NRS, NJB, NLB, NKJ, NIV, NRSV, RWB and many more say the same but the Torah starts in Genesis 1 "When God began to create the heaven and the earth."  The Jewish footnote is interesting "When God began to create...the earth being unformed and void.  Other translations render this, "In the beginning God created". Both translations are possible but we cannot be sure that this difference is more that stylistic.  Our translation follows Rashi, who said that the text would have been written if its primary purpose had been to teach the order in which creation took place.  Later scholars used the translation "In the beginning" as proof that God created out of nothing (ex nihilo), but it is not likely that the biblical author was concerned with this problem.

I believe in God, the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth.

I also believe in stories as being true but not fact.  So, to believe that God created the earth in six day and the world is 6 but a thousand years old takes the faith found of those still living on the milk of Hebrews 5.  I don't subscribe to this belief but I believe you have the right to believe what you want, I still believe God created the heavens and the earth and that scientists are partly right other wise we wouldn't have disciples like Thomas who ask questions and seek answers through visual accuity.

So then I want you to comprehend and acknowledge the importance of Ockhams Razor "Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred."  By reason alone I would have to believe in evolution not as Darwin suggested but as a constant process of life and yet I also believe that God is the creator and that God is still creating, God is still involved. 

So then I was reading about Ockham's Razor and found that our dear Dr. Luther also has a Razor to his name what is it?  Is it Justification?  Theology of the Cross?  I know one of you probably know this...

PJ

     

[EENGELBRECHT]

Do you believe that God is still creating?  Everyday a new species pops up even as an old one seems to go extinct except that a fish that is found in Africa was thought to be extinct these last 60 million years.

My torah reads Genesis just a little different than our Christian understanding of creation.  Most Christian Bibles start  "In the Beginning God Created..." NRS, NJB, NLB, NKJ, NIV, NRSV, RWB and many more say the same but the Torah starts in Genesis 1 "When God began to create the heaven and the earth."  The Jewish footnote is interesting "When God began to create...the earth being unformed and void.  Other translations render this, "In the beginning God created". Both translations are possible but we cannot be sure that this difference is more that stylistic.  Our translation follows Rashi, who said that the text would have been written if its primary purpose had been to teach the order in which creation took place.  Later scholars used the translation "In the beginning" as proof that God created out of nothing (ex nihilo), but it is not likely that the biblical author was concerned with this problem.

Interesting reflections.

The Psalms emphasize God's sustaining of creation and intimate involvement with it (cf Ps 139 re: human beings). I think new variations of species certainly appear all the time as a result of selective breeding and perhaps also because of God's intimate care. But speciation is a real scientific problem, since an animal of a different color may be called a separate species when, in fact, it breeds perfectly well with other "species." Genesis emphasizes that plants and animals would reproduce after their "kinds," a much broader category than "species" as biologists use the term. I don't think new "kinds" appear, in the Genesis sense.

On translating the opening of Genesis, I think the linguistic move goes like this: "In beginning [to] create" = "When God began to create." It is grammatically possible but less probable than what appears in traditional translations. In fact, I think the translation you're seeing in the Jewish Bible reflects modern philosophical presuppositions that traditional Jewish interpreters would reject (e.g., matter is eternal). I believe that only God is described as eternal in Scripture, which would accord well with the traditional interpretation also, and provide the context for Gn 1.

[EENGELBRECHT]

A Jewish rabbi with whom I and some other pastors were taking a seminar interpreted the Light of Day one as God's Light, coming from God Himself.  Seemed a short jump for me to go from that to John 1:4-5 "The life was the Light of men.  The Light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it" and Jesus in John 9 "I am the Light of the world."
Ken Kimball

Certainly Rv reflects this idea as well, since the new creation will need neither sun nor moon. There are also descriptions of God's Word as light (cf "and God said").

In Christ,
EE

[peter_speckhard]

The idea that Genesis was written as the ancients experienced it does not hold up. The false presupposition is that Gen. 1-2 is a description of the world as the ancients saw it. Manifestly it is not. The water was separated and the in-between was called "sky". How would that make sense to an ancient any more than someone of today (unless it was always cloudy)? The flood (which was not merely 40 days of rain, but the heavens being opened and the waters of the deep bursting forth) essentially undoes some of the separating in Gen. 1. No Creationist I know of discusses Creation without reference to the flood, because it makes the distinction-- when you're reading Gen. 1 you're NOT reading a description of the world as we (or the ancients) see and experience it. That assumption one way ro the other makes a huge difference. We see and experience the world as the deluge left it. There may be all kinds of arguments for or against a literal reading of Genesis, but the discussion can't even really engage until we begin with admitting that what Genesis 1 describes is not the world as we see it or the world as the ancients saw it. It is a world that no longer exists. Knowing what we're examining affects greatly how we exmaine it.