I'm likely going to take back what I wrote about the term "dinosaur mummy," but it's a little early to say.

Serendipitously, I saw Grave Secrets of Dinosaurs: Soft Tissues and Hard Science at the library today. I've barely started it, but it looks like I'll be able to add a little to this conversation.

Waiting on who? Have you emailed GRI or the individual scientists? Or do you have some of your own scientist peers looking into it?

Geology is the strongest evidence for an old earth. No doubt. Still it is based on three unprovable assumptions.

1. No daughter elements were present in the rocks at their formation or creation.
2. The rate of decay of parent elements to daughter elements has always been the same.
3. The samples being dated have been closed systems their entire life.

The Adventists complicate this process further by believing the Earth itself is old, and thus the minerals in sedimentary rocks and the Precambrian rocks are themselves very old. It becomes more difficult then to use the rocks and minerals to date the fossils within them.

If "the whole study of origins is pseudoscience," then why does the church have a Geoscience Research Institute? By that statement we must admit that their Resarch is pseudy.



But the GSRI asks: << But can science aid in finding answers to philosophical questions about our origin and destiny and about our purpose for living?>> and gives a negative answer.

If Philosophy is the love of wisdom; and Science is knowledge; and Wisdom is using knowledge in the best way: then Science preceeds Wisdom and Philosophy because : Fist we must get the facts straight! and not base our philosophy or wisdom on false data. QED.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Prob. 1:7)

Pseudoscience is unproven or uncorroborated knowledge or beliefs that allegedly are to be scientific. Science is observable, repeatable and measurable.

Philosophy is the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

The Biblical Approach
►First comes the fear of the Lord. That is #1.
►That forms our world-view which which orientates our philosophical investigations.
►Then science, history, mathematics and theology become tools for the investigation of knowledge.

The agnostic will start with science because it is tangible and he or she can only trust the tangible. The Christian starts with faith which "is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

I've been naive and wishful often, but not in this instance! To say it is wishful thinking that science is free of bias.... hey! if it's not free of bias it not science, is it! If any ONE scientistic is biased his peers will soon point it out and correct the situation.

As for calling me naive, i forgive you. This time.

What comes next? It is ONLY the beginning. What's next? A non-scientific Weltanschauung? Only then is science allowed to verify one's preformed world-view?

Knowledge(science) is first, according to Proverbs 1:7, before forming a world-view.

Waiting on you, actually (and any other participants in this thread) - I'm interested in your reaction to what my study of their research revealed. I'd rather not email them because that just leads to the kind of thing we've had before: condescending or annoyed reactions from distant 'experts' who are not part of the discussion. If we could find one of them with the time and interest to come and really participate in the discussion here it'd be different, but a dismissive or defensive email from one of them is not much use at all.

I just find it interesting that the GRI scientists have all, if they've published at all, published work showing life on earth hundreds of millions of years ago. How does this fit with their membership of the GRI, whose mission is to show that life on earth is a few thousand years old?

...and after all, the GRI, not the dinosaur 'mummy', *was* the original topic of this thread.

Yes, that is interesting. I wonder how much these particular scientists participate in the GRI.