There has been much excitment about finding DNA in the marrow of some dinosaurs. As one who has worked with DNA I find this astounding. DNA is very fragile and rapidly deteriorates. For it to be preserved the dinosaur would have had to die and be fully buried in an anoxic (without oxygen environment) within minutes to hours. As well, there probably would have been a rapid cooling process to decrease enzymatic activity. All of this fits with a catastrophic burial process-not slowly falling into a river and the mud oozing around the organism. While dinosuar DNA may not be found worldwide (yet), dinosaurs themselves are, and in layers of rock consistent with catastrophic burial These data (observations) can be consistent with a worldwide flood condition in the recent past. Thus, there is a contrast in the ways to present (picture) the same data.
As well, there has been, what I consider a mis-representation of science when the fragmentary pieces of DNA from dinosaurs are compared to other animals, eg. chickens etc, or cloning attempts are done to supposedly support the evolutionary worldview. The data can just as easily be put within the framework of a designer using similar building materials to make different living organisms. Man, made in the image of God (per the Bible), can not create ex nihilo (out of nothing) but may be able to manipulate the creation and thus insert DNA from one organism into another. This does not prove evolution.There are no documented (observed) examples of evolution trans-organismal, and no valid process for it.
I am including a paper I wrote on the interfacing of religion, philosophy, and science that demonstrates how one must incorporate a religious view when discussling evolution or creation as a mechanism for the beginning and diversity of life as well as the corruptive properties (death and disease) seen in all life forms.
I long for the day when science will be presented in a proper context and that the children in our schools will not be spoon fed the dogma of evolutionary thinking calling it science; but rather be taught the correct processes of experimentation and the uses of the data obtained to develop technology.
by John Leslie
Published: 28 May 2013 (GMT+10)
In the context of discussing the Noah Flood Account a correct understanding of it as a narrative can be better ascertained by a correct understanding of the fields of religion, science, and philosophy. These three categories are part of the fabric of every human being. How one views and integrates them together will affect their views on the Noah Flood Account. A brief description and discussion of the interfacing of them will follow—but a longer account has been given elsewhere.1 Thus, I am presenting how I view the inter-related fields of religion, science, and philosophy and their impact on my views of the Noah Flood Account. But it is very important to acknowledge that every single theologian, philosopher, and scientist brings to the debate a bias—some admit this, but many are unwilling to admit that they do so... (See Link below for continuation of the article.)