A very long email (masters degree in biology), doesn't agree with most scientists

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
A very long email (masters degree in biology), doesn't agree with most scientists

A LONG EMAIL FOR YOU TO RESPOND TO, I POSTED TWO FOLLOW UPS BELOW:

I am rather curious, how many of you started out believing in a religion,
but didn't really know much about it? Or believed in a religion and later
became atheist? Why do most atheist groups hold the theology that there is
no god but concentrate most of their arguments towards Christians, and Jews
when there are thousands of cult religions out there and many other
religions? I just want to clarify that I am a research scientist in
biology working on a double doctorate at the moment (DDS/PhD). My BS was
in Biology with a high concentration in molecular biology and a chemistry
minor. My Masters is in biology as well. Basically, my life has been
centered around two studies, the study of religion and the study of
science. I do believe that there are many many religions out there that
make outrageous claims and contradict scientific FACT. However, I do
believe that there are religions out there that science does not
necessarily disprove either or vise versa. I think a huge problem is that
many people take on the aspect of one extreme or the other. In other words
you're either for pure religion and what it says, or pure science and what
it says. Being a researcher I have been trained sufficiently to question
pretty much everything I come across. I question religion and science. I
have found that Christianity holds very strong points but I think is
easily misinterpreted by atheist’s theologians and the like. This sadly
draws weak support to their claims without even studying the materials at
hand in depth. The same can be true for the Christian who doesn't study
science. Ignorance may be bliss for many, but I beg to differ. I felt my
calling was to study both and try to make a connection to end the war on
the 'brainwashed' stereotype. From my studies, I have concluded that I am
more of a creationist than an evolutionist. Don't get me wrong, because I
am Christian it does not mean I disregard what science has to offer with
theories, facts and data. One thing I am blessed with is an open mind
that allows me to see past what is already understood or held true and to
put in my own fresh ideas that helps break down the walls.

This is what I believe: I believe in Christianity, the God of Christianity, the creation
story, and the bible in the literal sense, evolution in the standpoint of
genetic drift to a degree, adaptative radiation, microevolution and
geographical barriers
(I am trying to keep this as simple as possible for
those who may not understand biology). As you may be aware, there are two
creation stories in the bible. This I am well aware of. However, it does
not contradict like many people think it does, but actually makes more
sense and thus provides supporting biblical evidence that the world is
older than 6000 years. I personally believe it is much older but many
Christians don't realize the two stories: the creation of the universe
and the world, and later the creation of the garden (simple explained
version, I could write a whole page on the whole ordeal). There is a time
frame there that isn't recorded which makes the age of the earth variable
even in the biblical sense. Another thing I believe in is Noahs ark.
Strangely it seems the creation story and the Noah’s ark story are the
two leading causes that people use not to believe in the bible, both from
genesis. The story of Noah’s ark holds many truths and evidence: No
living organism on the earth is older than 4600 years (and many can be
older than that) The oldest trees are 4600 years, the sahara desert with
the rate of spreading has only covered enough ground for a 4600 year time
frame, the oldest coral reef is 4600 years old. This is where science
plays in the bible, in Genesis it states that Noah should collect every
animal of it's KIND. Not every species. Many people disregard this and
see it as every animal in the world, when it is actually only land
dwelling animals of its kind that breathes through lungs, this doesn't
include insects who breath through slits on their exoskeleton, worms
through skin diffusion etc. This allows supporting evidence for
adaptation and changes in animals over the years after this point in
history. In the past thousand years we have taken wolves and bred them
into thousands of different types of dogs with probably 100 pure breeds,
(just ball parking it). So why is it so hard to think that 8 people
formed the 9 distinct geographical races of the world? Modern genetics
show how, following such a break-up of a population, variations in skin
color, for example, can develop in only a few generations. There is good
evidence that the various people groups we have today have not been
separated for huge periods of time. [Worldwide variations in mitochondrial
DNA (the "Mitochondrial Eve" story) were claimed to show that all people
today trace back to a single mother (living in a small population) 70,000
to 800,000 years ago. Recent findings on the rate of mitochondrial DNA
mutations shorten this period drastically to put it within the biblical
time-frame. See L. Lowe and S. Scherer, "Mitochondrial Eve: The Plot
Thickens," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 1997, 12(11):422-423; C.
Wieland, "A Shrinking Date for Eve," CEN Technical Journal, 1998,
12(1):1-3.]

Next question is: What Is a "Race"?
There is really only one race -- the human race.. Clearly, though, there
are groups of people who have certain features (e.g., skin color) in
common, which distinguish them from other groups. We prefer to call these
"people groups" rather than "races," to avoid the evolutionary
connotations associated with the word "race."
All peoples can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This shows that
the biological differences between the "races" are not very great. In
fact, the DNA differences are trivial. The DNA of any two people in the
world would typically differ by just 0.2 percent (J.C. Gutin, "End of the
Rainbow," Discover, November 1994, pp. 71-75.). Of this, only 6 percent
can be linked to racial categories; the rest is "within race" variation.
The variation in DNA between human individuals shows that racial
differences are trivial. This genetic unity means, for instance, that
white Americans, although ostensibly far removed from black Americans in
phenotype, can sometimes be better tissue matches for them than are other
black Americans.

Anthropologists generally classify people into a small number of main
racial groups, such as the Caucasoid (European or "white"),3 the Mongoloid
(which includes the Chinese, Inuit or Eskimo, and Native Americans), the
Negroid (black Africans), and the Australoid (the Australian Aborigines).
Within each classification, there may be many different sub-groups.

Virtually all evolutionists would now say that the various people groups
did not have separate origins. That is, different people groups did not
each evolve from a different group of animals. So they would agree with
the biblical creationist that all people groups have come from the same
original population. Of course, they believe that such groups as the
Aborigines and the Chinese have had many tens of thousands of years of
separation. Most believe that there are such vast differences between the
groups that there had to be many years for these differences to develop.

One reason for this is that many people believe that the observable
differences arise from some people having unique features in their
hereditary make-up which others lack. This is an understandable but
incorrect idea. Let's look at skin color, for instance.
One reason for this is that many people believe that the observable
differences arise from some people having unique features in their
hereditary make-up which others lack. This is an understandable but
incorrect idea.

What about SKIN COLORS?
It is easy to think that since different groups of people have "yellow"
skin, "red" skin, "black" skin, "white" skin, and "brown" skin, there must
be many different skin pigments or colorings. And since different chemicals
for coloring would mean a different genetic recipe or code in the
hereditary blueprint in each people group, it appears to be a real
problem. How could all those differences develop within a short time?
However, we all have the same coloring pigment in our skin -- melanin.
This is a dark-brownish pigment that is produced in different amounts in
special cells in our skin. If we had none (as do people called albinos,
who inherit a mutation-caused defect, and cannot produce melanin), then we
would have a very white or pink skin coloring. If we produced a little
melanin, we would be European white. If our skin produced a great deal of
melanin, we would be a very dark black. And in between, of course, are all
shades of brown. There are no other significant skin pigments [Other
substances can in minor ways affect skin shading, such as the colored
fibers of the protein elastin and the pigment carotene. However, once
again we all share these same compounds, and the principles governing
their inheritance are similar to those outlined here. Factors other than
pigment in the skin may influence the shade perceived by the observer in
subtle ways, such as the thickness of the overlying (clear) skin layers,
the density and positioning of the blood capillary networks, etc. In fact,
"melanin," which is produced by cells in the body called melanocytes,
consists of two pigments, which also account for hair color. Eumelanin is
very dark brown, phaeomelanin is more reddish. People tan when sunlight
stimulates eumelanin production. Redheads, who are often unable to develop
a protective tan, have a high proportion of phaeomelanin. They have
probably inherited a defective gene which makes their pigment cells
"unable to respond to normal signals that stimulate eumelanin production."
See P. Cohen, "Redheads Come Out of the Shade," New Scientist, 1995,
147(1997):18].

In summary, from currently available information, the really important
factor in determining skin color is melanin -- the amount produced.
This situation is true not only for skin color. Generally, whatever
feature we may look at, no people group has anything that is essentially
different from that possessed by any other. For example, the Asian, or
almond, eye differs from a typical Caucasian eye in having more fat around
them. Both Asian and Caucasian eyes have fat -- the latter simply have
less.

What does melanin do?

It protects the skin against damage by ultraviolet light from the sun. If
you have too little melanin in a very sunny environment, you will easily
suffer sunburn and skin cancer. If you have a great deal of melanin, and
you live in a country where there is little sunshine, it will be harder
for you to get enough vitamin D (which needs sunshine for its production
in your body). You may then suffer from vitamin D deficiency, which could
cause a bone disorder such as rickets.
We also need to be aware that we are not born with a genetically fixed
amount of melanin. Rather, we have a genetically fixed potential to
produce a certain amount, and the amount increases in response to
sunlight. For example, you may have noticed that when your Caucasian
friends (who spent their time indoors during winter) headed for the beach
at the beginning of summer they all had more or less the same pale white
skin color. As the summer went on, however, some became much darker than
others.

How is it that many different skin colors can arise in a short time?
Remember, whenever we speak of different "colors" we are referring to
different shades of the one color, melanin.
If a person from a very black people group marries someone from a very
white group, their offspring (called mulattos) are mid-brown. It has long
been known that when mulattos marry each other, their offspring may be
virtually any "color," ranging from very dark to very light. Understanding
this gives us the clues we need to answer our question, but first we must
look, in a simple way, at some of the basic principles of heredity.

Heredity
Each of us carries information in our body that describes us in the way a
blueprint and specifications describe a furnished building. It determines
not only that we will be human beings, rather than cabbages or crocodiles,
but also whether we will have blue eyes, short nose, long legs, etc. When a
sperm fertilizes an egg, all the information that specifies how the person
will be built (ignoring such superimposed factors as exercise and diet) is
already present. Most of this information is in coded form in our DNA [Most
of this DNA is in the nucleus of each cell, but some is contained in
mitochondria, which are outside the nucleus in the cytoplasm. Sperm
contribute only nuclear DNA when the egg is fertilized. Mitochondrial DNA
is inherited only from the mother, via the egg.].
To illustrate coding, a piece of string with beads on it can carry a
message in Morse code. The piece of string, by the use of a simple
sequence of short beads, long beads (to represent the dots and dashes of
Morse code), and spaces, can carry the same information as the English
word "help" typed on a sheet of paper. The entire Bible could be written
thus in Morse code on a long enough piece of string.
In a similar way, the human blueprint is written in a code (or language
convention) which is carried on very long chemical strings of DNA. This is
by far the most efficient information storage system known, greatly
surpassing any foreseeable computer technology.6 This information is
copied (and reshuffled) from generation to generation as people
reproduce.

The word "gene" refers to a small part of that information which has the
instructions for only one type of enzyme, for example.7 It may be simply
understood as a portion of the "message string" containing only one
specification.

For example, there is one gene that carries the instructions for making
hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in your red blood cells. If
that gene has been damaged by mutation (such as copying mistakes during
reproduction), the instructions will be faulty, so it will often make a
crippled form of hemoglobin, if any. (Diseases such as sickle-cell anemia
and thalassemia result from such mistakes.)
So, with an egg which has just been fertilized -- where does all its
information, its genes, come from? One half comes from the father (carried
in the sperm), and the other half from the mother (carried in the egg).
Genes come in pairs, so in the case of hemoglobin, for example, we have
two sets of code (instruction) for hemoglobin manufacture, one coming from
the mother and one from the father.

This is a very useful arrangement, because if you inherit a damaged gene
from one parent that could instruct your cells to produce a defective
hemoglobin, you are still likely to get a normal one from the other parent
which will continue to give the right instructions. Thus, only half the
hemoglobin in your body will be defective. (In fact, each of us carries
hundreds of genetic mistakes, inherited from one or the other of our
parents, which are usefully "covered up" by being matched with a normal
gene from the other parent

To give an example of the speed time frame: The blue Fugates weren't a
race but rather an excessively tight-knit family living in the Appalachian
Mountains. The patriarch of the clan was Martin Fugate, who settled along
the banks of Troublesome Creek near Hazard, Kentucky, sometime after 1800.
His wife, Mary, is thought to have been a carrier for a rare disease known
as hereditary methemoglobinemia, which we'll call met-H.
Due to an enzyme deficiency, the blood of met-H victims has reduced
oxygen-carrying capacity. Instead of being the usual bright red, arterial
blood is chocolate brown and gives the skin of Caucasians a bluish cast.
Hereditary met-H is caused by a recessive gene. If only one of your
parents has this gene, you'll be normal, but if they both have it, there's
a good chance you'll be blue.

None of Martin and Mary Fugate's descendants would have been blue had they
not intermarried with a nearby clan, the Smiths. The Smiths were
descendants of Richard Smith and Alicia Combs, one of whom apparently was
also a met-H carrier. According to family historian Mary Fugate, the first
known blue Fugate was born in 1832. Because of inbreeding among the
isolated hill folk--the Fugate family tree is a tangled mess of cousins
marrying cousins--blue people started popping up frequently thereafter. A
half dozen or so were on the scene by the 1890s, and one case was reported
as recently as 1975. They were quite a sight. One woman is said to have had
lips the color of a bruise. – one hundred years and we observe a
phenotypically different group of individuals

Also there is a group of people that have two giant claw like toes for
feet called the ostrich people.
With all of this being said, is it still hard to believe that Noah’s ark
is a possibility? I still want to go back to my original question and ask
what made you atheist etc. Hope we can continue to talk because, as you
might see from just a partial piece of a topic, I have a lot to say.

Quote:

1. Did you really just write that whole email for us?
2. Would you join our forum and discuss your email with others if I posted
it?

- Sapient

Quote:

1.yes I did.
2.I would love to discuss my email with others as well as potential others
under a few conditions: my faith isn't bashed....i.e. having people saying
that I'm gay for my beliefs, Jesus is a homo, christians are closeminded
etc, people stay on the subject at hand (it is easy for someone to talk
about one topic and then bombard their response with potentially endless
amounts of other comments acusations, questions, theories etc. Obviously
I have a life outside of the computer world, it takes time for me to type
and feel that I may be overwhelmed with too many emails to respond. I
also have control over what I say and request that any comments that I
state should not be taken out of context or used in an abusive manner that
may threaten my educational/oocupational endeavors. With this said, how do
I join and how fast do people respond? Obviously in a day I cannot go
through more than a few comments and have appropriate time to read, obsorb
think and respond.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Oldest living things...

First off, there are creosote colonies that are estimated to be 11k years old, King's Holly colonies 43k years old, and quaking aspen colones 80k years old. Also 40 million year old bacteria have been found in insect stomachs encased in amber.

Secondly, the oldest living thing does not make for a good reference of when a cataclysmic event occured.

Third, the claim of the oldest reef being 4.5k years old is based on a highly inaccurate estimate of coral reef growth.

Fourth, evidence exists showing that the Saharan desert is upwards of 7 million years old.

For a solid thrashing of Flood "evidence", please read the articles mentioned under the "Flood" heading: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CH200-CH799

-Triften 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Am I suprised that a

Am I suprised that a "scientist" PUKE COUGH VOMIT, says that they are a biologist in favor of Christianity? NOPE, just another apologist with crappy arguments who fails to see that their religion is not the only religion attempting to bastardize the universal tool of science to prop up their narrow mythology.

SCIENTOLOGY

KABBALLAH

Even Muslims claim they invented algabra so theirfore Allah is the one true god. I had one quote the Quran saying that it talked about mountains moving so that was evidence that Muslims knew about plate tectonics.

ALL PHONEY GARBAGE INTEDED TO DISTRACT YOU FROM WHAT THEY ARE REALLY DOING, "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MYTHOLOGY BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"

Could it be that it is myth? The theist never wants to consider that. Brave people have the ability of introspection and self examination. It takes an intelectuall coward to say, "Dont pick on my god".

We are not picking on anyone. We are using our voice to ridicule the absurd. YOU the believer should drop the notion that we are out to murder you or have you arrested. We simply are here to say, "Hey look at what you are claiming. Is it real? Or is it merely something you disire to be real?"

If you are afraid to ask that question then it says to me you really are not confident in your position.

If I said, "My purple snarfwidget makes kegs of beer for me."

You'd be right in saying, "That is rediculous"

Should my response be, "YOU HATE ME"

Or if my claim is true say, "Ok, here is my evidence".

Then you should continue examining every presentation I make for this "purple snarfwidget".

Our point here is to challenge everyone to aim hard questions at themselves without fear. An all powerfull being, IF THAT IS WHAT YOU CLAIM, should by the believer's standards not be worried about the challenges of the atheist.

The bottem line is that in our daily lives we think and question on issues of politics, economics, what jobs we want, what house or car we will buy and we question those things to make sure we are going down the best possible choice. No religion should excape this same scrutiny. Christians rightfully criticise Muslims and what they do and claim in the name of their religion and vice versa. I challenge both sides to LOOK AT WHAT YOU CLAIM, do not be afraid to examine it.

If it makes no sense that you'll get 72 virgins or a heaven full of rivers of milk and wine, how would it make sense that "POOF" a human magically came from dirt.

If it is worth defending it should be worth self examination. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
response to triften

triften wrote:

First off, there are creosote colonies that are estimated to be 11k years old, King's Holly colonies 43k years old, and quaking aspen colones 80k years old. Also 40 million year old bacteria have been found in insect stomachs encased in amber. 

Ah yes I had a feeling someone was going to bring up these models to my attention. Let us look at the key word here: estimated that means they really don't have a set number and base it off of other estimates that they have. One estimate after another all data can become askewed can it not? There have been many claims of plants other than trees being supposedly older than 10,000 years, including the King’s Holly of Tasmania (which was based on fossil remains near the plant) and a colony of Box Huckleberry (based on growth estimates over an area of 25 km2/10 miles2) in Pennsylvania, USA. This right here should give you a clue that the estimate isn’t based on a living model but rather a fossil or dead tree located at or near the location of living specimens. The most notable claims, however, have been about the Creosote Bush (Larrea tridentate) of North America. It is a very common, unspectacular-looking shrub that thrives in the extreme, hot desert regions of both North and South America. The ‘granddaddy’ of them all is a plant named ‘King Clone’. Found in 1980, it was claimed to be 11,700 years old. But this date has been much revised, with scientists now speculating about an age of 7,500 years or less (Unassuming California bush may be the world’s oldest living thing, 2 July 2002).

In times of drought, the Creosote Bush looks more dead than alive. When there is plentiful water, it bursts to life with a foliage of waxy green leaves that ‘colours’ the desert. When crushed, its resins smell like creosote (Creosote is a dark, oily liquid obtained by distilling tar. It is used preserving wood), hence its name.

Its growth cycle begins as a single plant. As the original shrub gets older, the stem and branches at its centre die and get covered with sand. However, the branches on the outward edges continue to grow to become the main plant. This process is repeated over and over again (for many years) as each new bush grows and dies, eventually forming rings of small creosote bushes stretching out over many hundreds of metres. This is a form of natural cloning (Desert tortoise preserve committee, 2 July 2002).

Dating is assumed by estimating the growth rate at which the rings of bushes increase. The debate regarding the age of King Clone demonstrates the inexactness of this uniformitarian approach; it is impossible to accurately determine a plant’s age based on current growth rates. Although I couldn’t find anything about the age presumed on the quaking aspen I can confidently say that it does fit in the model of most trees and shrubs age estimated in the California/Utah regions. Many people had the impression that age must refer to the number of rings, but that was not the case. How were the dates obtained? The trees in this particular stand are genetically identical to each other. That is, they have reproduced by vegetative reproduction from an original tree. This could mean that they have simply transplanted themselves, possibly from fallen branches, or new growth could be occurring from underground root systems. It is assumed that this reproductive process has been continuing for many millennia, hence the speculative ‘long ages’. In some cases, the carbon-14 (14C) dating method has been used on the root system and nearby fragments, and Huon Pine pollen has been found in the sedimentary layers of a nearby lake. If you have ever taken a basic organismal biology course you would know of the often explained the assumptions behind 14C methods and the errors made in interpreting the data.

No individual quaking aspen has ever been dated, by straight-forward tree ring methods, as more than 3,500 years old.

Next on to amber. The basis of the age is off of assumptions, the assumption that the amber is 45 million years old, therefore the insect inside is or a sliver older than 45 million years and the bacterial symbionts in its hindgut are also 45 million years old. It’s the basic story of the lady who swallowed the fly, only this time with a 45 million year old age stamped on it. You first have to assume that amber is 45 million years old, and even that isn’t an accurate measurement, esp. using inaccurate and need be outdated measuring. It is interesting to know that insects in amber known as the gladiators have recently been rediscovered thriving on a stony mountain top in Namibia, but somehow have avoided all genetic mutations and evolutionary changes for 45 million years! What exactly is amber? Although amber is universally accepted to be fossil tree resin, no-one knows what forces cause tree resin to harden into amber, and no-one has yet been able to synthesize it artificially (Amber, 16 October 2002). It is also uncertain how organisms are preserved so perfectly inside hardened amber. Evolutionists concede that ‘many interesting problems remain concerning the age of [amber] deposits and their exact origin,’2 but they nevertheless assume that millions of years were needed (Insects in amber, 2 December 2002, Amber in Latvia, 16 October 2002, What is amber?, 16 October 2002).

.

However, some experts have long thought that amber fossils could have only come about through a worldwide flood. When describing the famous Baltic amber deposits, N. Heribert-Nilsson, then Director of the Swedish Botanical Institute, wrote: ‘The geological and paleobiological facts concerning the layers of amber are impossible to understand unless the explanation is accepted that they are the result of an allochthonous process, including the whole earth (Translated from the original German on p. 1194 of the book Synthetische Artbildung). [allochthonous refers to transport from other locations (from Greek allos, other; chthon, ground), i.e. by powerful water flow—flood. The opposite is autochthonous, i.e. coming from the same place without any need for transport, from Greek autos, self.]

Even experts with a millions-of-years geological perspective acknowledge that ‘appropriate burial conditions’ were necessary for amber formation. To explain why amber deposits are often associated with brown coal (lignite), they surmise that ‘copious resin-producing trees’ were transported by water, then: ‘Wood and resin are buried under the sediment and while the resin becomes amber, the wood becomes lignite. Wet sediments of clay and sand preserve the resin well because they are devoid of oxygen. Large numbers of trees felled, transported, then buried implies lots of floodwater! Also, heat is said to have been a likely factor in promoting resin flow from wood.

Perhaps the Flood waters—heated in places by the ‘fountains of the great deep’ (Genesis 7:11)—provided ideal conditions for large quantities of liquid amber to ooze from mats of floating logs, enveloping insects and other flood debris before hardening (After heavy tropical rain, abundant rain-drowned insects often cover the bottom of pools, and/or float near the surface. As amber’s specific gravity is slightly over one, it floats in saltwater but sinks in fresh water, leaving the possibility that material preserved in amber was either flotsam or settlings, or perhaps both (specific gravity is the density of a substance relative to pure water, which therefore has SG = 1 by definition). Did you know if you heat amber up in a pot of water it just become sap again? It literally is just tree sap without permineralization that we normally see with fossils of other sorts.

triften wrote:

“Secondly, the oldest living thing does not make for a good reference of when a cataclysmic event occured.”

It doesn’t? What would make for a good ‘reference’?  Since the bible states that all living things on land were killed then why would it not be reasonable to try and find something still living on land beyond the timeframe of the bible?

triften wrote:
“Third, the claim of the oldest reef being 4.5k years old is based on a highly inaccurate estimate of coral reef growth.”

For this, I think that I will take the word of marine biologists dedicating 20 years of their life on this subject as opposed to a statement without any backing. However I do have backing to what I said from one of those biologists: Ariel Roth of the Geoscience Research Institute has commented on the fact that estimates of net reef growth rates vary from 0.8 millimetres per year to 80 millimetres per year, whereas actual measurements based on soundings at depth are many times these estimates. Roth suggests a number of reasons for this difference.

The main one is that measurements made at the surface will show lower rates of growth because of exposure to air at low tides and intense ultraviolet light. Lack of light will of course kill a reef—no live coral growth takes place below about 50 metres under the surface. Hence thick atolls such as Eniwetok require the ocean floor to sink as the coral builds. As the coral is lowered, faster growth is possible than that which we measure at the surface.

There are complex factors which both add to the growth of a reef and take away from it. For instance, attack by certain organisms and wave destruction will contribute to a decline in reef size. On the other hand, a growing reef can trap sediments as they are moved along by currents, thus adding to its thickness. Storms can dramatically add to the thickness of a reef by bringing in coral from other areas.

For example, in 1972, Cyclone Bebe ‘constructed’ a rampart of coral rubble 3.5 metres high, 37 metres wide and 18 kilometres long in a few hours.

Given all the above, it seems reasonable to rely on the actual figures reported from depth-sounding measurements for coral reef growth rates, rather than calculations trying to take all these other factors into account. Such reef growth rates have been reported as high as 414 millimetres per year in the Celebes. At such a rate, the entire thickness of the Eniwetok Atoll could have been formed in less than 3,500 years.

In addition, actual experiments indicate that the rate of coral growth can be nearly doubled by increasing the temperature five degrees Celsius (remember that Eniwetok sits on a now-extinct volcano), or increasing the carbonate content of sea water.

To maintain that Eniwetok Atoll could have formed in the time-span since the Flood recorded in Genesis is not at all inconsistent with real-world evidence.

triften wrote:
“Fourth, evidence exists showing that the Saharan desert is upwards of 7 million years old.”

The data that this is based on is highly ambiguous and can have many interpretations. Also, there is much more evidence that states otherwise for the age of this desert.

triften wrote:
“For a solid thrashing of Flood "evidence", please read the articles mentioned under the "Flood" heading: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CH200-CH799

I’ve been to this site several times in the past. It is hard to follow but from what I read is highly inaccurate and contradicts many scientific facts and findings. For instance one comment was the anchors used in ships were Christianized, a thousand or more years before Christians were even in existence. It would still be the time of the Jews so how would Christian symbols be in play?


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: "POOF" a

Brian37 wrote:

"POOF" a human magically came from dirt.

If it is worth defending it should be worth self examination.

 

You should realize that this is what evolution also teaches, we came from volcanic rock and hydrogen gas.  Only this can't happen.  The Miller Ulrey experiment is debunked because they disregarded the scientific statement that the ozone was created millions of years after organisms. http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm  But that can't be the case because without an ozone hydrogen will escape and then amino acids, DNA, etc can't be formed.  So poof we came from volcanic rocks over millions of years seems to be less likely.  Also, I am going to disregard the rest of your hollow attempts at philosophy.  I deal with science not statements such as can god create a rock even he can't lift.

 

As for the muslims, I don't think a god would instruct you on how to beat your wife and practice monogamy in life but then polygamy in the next.  Also, the bible has strong points, such as when it was written if by man for man, then it would have used the scientific findings at that time and not those that we are discovering thousands of years later.

 

THE BIBLE

SCIENCE NOW

SCIENCE THEN

The earth is a sphere
(Isaiah 40:22).

The earth is a sphere

The earth was a flat disk.

Incalculable number of stars
(Jeremiah 33:22).

Incalculable number of stars

Only 1,100 stars.

Free float of earth in space
(Job 26:7).

Free float of earth in space.

Earth sat on a large animal.

Creation made of invisible
elements (Hebrews 11:3).

Creation made of invisible
elements (atoms).

Science was ignorant on
the subject.

Each star is different
(1 Corinthians 15:41).

Each star is different.

All stars were the same.

Light moves
(Job 38:19,20).

Light moves.

Light was fixed in place.

Air has weight
(Job 28:25).

Air has weight.

Air was weightless.

Winds blow in cyclones
(Ecclesiastes 1:6).

Winds blow in cyclones.

Winds blew straight.

Blood is the source of life
and health
(Leviticus 17:11).

Blood is the source of life
and health.

Sick people must be bled.

Ocean floor contains deep
valleys and mountains
(2 Samuel 22:16;
Jonah 2:6).

Ocean floor contains deep
valleys and mountains.

The ocean floor was flat.

Ocean contains springs
(Job 38:16).

Ocean contains springs.

Ocean fed only by rivers
and rain.

When dealing with disease,
hands should be washed
under running water
(Leviticus 15:13).

When dealing with disease,
hands should be washed
under running water.

Hands washed in still water.

 


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Question: the double

Question: the double doctorate you're working on, in what subjects will that be? And what is a DDS?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote: Brian37

drdoubleu wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

"POOF" a human magically came from dirt.

If it is worth defending it should be worth self examination.

 

You should realize that this is what evolution also teaches, we came from volcanic rock and hydrogen gas. Only this can't happen. The Miller Ulrey experiment is debunked because they disregarded the scientific statement that the ozone was created millions of years after organisms. http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm But that can't be the case because without an ozone hydrogen will escape and then amino acids, DNA, etc can't be formed. So poof we came from volcanic rocks over millions of years seems to be less likely. Also, I am going to disregard the rest of your hollow attempts at philosophy. I deal with science not statements such as can god create a rock even he can't lift.

 

As for the muslims, I don't think a god would instruct you on how to beat your wife and practice monogamy in life but then polygamy in the next. Also, the bible has strong points, such as when it was written if by man for man, then it would have used the scientific findings at that time and not those that we are discovering thousands of years later.

 

THE BIBLE

SCIENCE NOW

SCIENCE THEN

The earth is a sphere
(Isaiah 40:22).

The earth is a sphere

The earth was a flat disk.

Incalculable number of stars
(Jeremiah 33:22).

Incalculable number of stars

Only 1,100 stars.

Free float of earth in space
(Job 26:7).

Free float of earth in space.

Earth sat on a large animal.

Creation made of invisible
elements (Hebrews 11:3).

Creation made of invisible
elements (atoms).

Science was ignorant on
the subject.

Each star is different
(1 Corinthians 15:41).

Each star is different.

All stars were the same.

Light moves
(Job 38:19,20).

Light moves.

Light was fixed in place.

Air has weight
(Job 28:25).

Air has weight.

Air was weightless.

Winds blow in cyclones
(Ecclesiastes 1:6).

Winds blow in cyclones.

Winds blew straight.

Blood is the source of life
and health
(Leviticus 17:11).

Blood is the source of life
and health.

Sick people must be bled.

Ocean floor contains deep
valleys and mountains
(2 Samuel 22:16;
Jonah 2:6).

Ocean floor contains deep
valleys and mountains.

The ocean floor was flat.

Ocean contains springs
(Job 38:16).

Ocean contains springs.

Ocean fed only by rivers
and rain.

When dealing with disease,
hands should be washed
under running water
(Leviticus 15:13).

When dealing with disease,
hands should be washed
under running water.

Hands washed in still water.

 

 What are you trying to prove?

Having an "obesrvation" does not constitute you knowing what the hell you are looking at.

"blood is the sorce of heath and life" Is a NO FRIGGEN DUH!

That doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out and they knew that when you stabbed someone without treatement the person would blead to death, that doesnt mean that the people who observed it knew what brian functions were or what oxygen deprivation physically does to the brain hebrew word in the bible for "cardeovascular" or anurism.

"Wash your hands" AGAIN NO DUH,

But Europians called Native Americans when they first saw them heathens for bathing. Those people read the Bible too. 

Again saying, "It is good to wash your hands" does not mean the people saying it knew what bacteria was. They didnt know what cell division was they didn't know any of that. All they knew was "washing hands good". 

 This is the same crap Muslims pull in saying, "This verse talks about mountains moving so theirfor Allah is real and taught them about plate tectonics". BULLCRAP TO THEM AND BULLCRAP TO YOU.

CUT THE CRAP,

None of what you quoted up there was invented by Christians or Hebrews and cultures before had similer vauge refrences but that did not make them modern scientists.

 You are getting your information from Cracker Jack appologists bent on warping your mind so much that you'll buy a book that talks about talking donkys and snakes "poof" instantaniosly turning into wood.

 Washing hands was a concept that had been around in polytheism and those polytheists didnt have a clue what bacteria was either. This is just another bullshit attempt to prop up your fairy tales.

Go find me the word "Hemoglobin" in the Bible. WHAT? NOT THERE? OF COURSE NOT DIPPY! BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS A MYTH BOOK, NOT A SCIENCE BOOK! 

 

BTW, why so afraid to actually put the text of the verses here insted of the numbers? Seems like a slick trick to me. You are hoping that we wont go look them up, "That looks impressive", Sure does untill you actually go read the verses and find vauge garbage that is nothing but metaphore.

BEEN THERE DONE THAT. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Did it ever occure to you

Did it ever occure to you that the writers were competing with other religions? Did it ever occure to you that they merely took what they thought would work in convincing people to convert?

And it is also typical for religion to pick out of science use it to prop up myth and demonize the science it doesnt like.

You claim the writers came up with those ideas.

Pleanty of people before had similar ideas about those things above but yet you arbitrary pick your club to defend rather than pondering that they put it in the book after seeing it somewhere else to put a false veil of credibility to it.

Conning people has always been a part of life, you'd just like to pretend you are not conning yourself or others. The dangerous part of what you are doing is warping the brains of of people and cheating them out of the ability to face reality.

Caperinicus knew tons about the mathmatical paths of stars and he put that down in formula. I suspect religious people after him caught on but were too stupid to incorperate the formulas because they were too busy demonizing them. So latter religions that didnt want to face reality left out the formulas and stuck in flowery metaphore and claimed the idea as original.

Same crap with Kabballah and Scientology. They to pick a buzz word out of science and create bullshit with it too.

Congradulations I wish you well in dumbing down humanity. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote: THE

drdoubleu wrote:

THE BIBLE

SCIENCE NOW

SCIENCE THEN

The earth is a sphere
(Isaiah 40:22).

The earth is a sphere

The earth was a flat disk.

I wish I had time for the whole discussion however I don't.  I'll merely illustrate that what is happening here is that DrDoubleU has flipped reality on it's head. 

The truth is that Isaiah 40:22 speaks of a CIRCLE, not a SPHERE.  That you would present this and want someone to believe it is troubling to say the least, we are generally a group of people well versed in history and the Churches subversion of a spherical Earth throughout history lasted for hundreds of years to the point where there are still people today that believe in a flat Earth solely based on dogmatic biblical teachings.

 This is the view of Earth if the Bible was accurate (SEE THE CIRCLE AS REFERRED TO IN THE PASSAGE YOU REFERENCE?):

Here is a student paper from where the above images came laying out multitudes of passages in which the bible shows us the Earth is not a Sphere travelling through space: http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane/eU_LITT.html

_______________

http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm

 ___________

Just some thoughts on the subversion of science by Christianity:

"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both psychologically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith."

Formal Church declaration in its indictment of Galileo

 ____________

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."

Cardinal Bellarmine, during the trial of Galileo, 1615

 

 

It'll best serve my time to leave this issue alone.  If having a masters degree in biology doesn't help one to ascertain a strong understanding of science, then I sure as hell am not gonna be able to help.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Warning: the user drdoubleu

Warning: the user drdoubleu has confounded abiogenesis with evolution. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
And before you go picking

And before you go picking on the Quran talking about beating women, you might want to read your precious bible. Your God pimps out women so the men wont get hurt and he also gives permission to people to take the enemy's women as sex slaves.

Now since you dont like quoting verses, I wont either, I think you are a big boy and can read that convoluted book all by yourself. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Did it ever

Brian37 wrote:

Did it ever occure to you that the writers were competing with other religions? Did it ever occure to you that they merely took what they thought would work in convincing people to convert?

And it is also typical for religion to pick out of science use it to prop up myth and demonize the science it doesnt like.

You claim the writers came up with those ideas.

Pleanty of people before had similar ideas about those things above but yet you arbitrary pick your club to defend rather than pondering that they put it in the book after seeing it somewhere else to put a false veil of credibility to it.

Conning people has always been a part of life, you'd just like to pretend you are not conning yourself or others. The dangerous part of what you are doing is warping the brains of of people and cheating them out of the ability to face reality.

Copernicus knew tons about the mathmatical paths of stars and he put that down in formula. I suspect religious people after him caught on but were too stupid to incorperate the formulas because they were too busy demonizing them. So latter religions that didnt want to face reality left out the formulas and stuck in flowery metaphore and claimed the idea as original.

Same crap with Kabballah and Scientology. They to pick a buzz word out of science and create bullshit with it too.

Congradulations I wish you well in dumbing down humanity.

NOW EVEN I HAVE MY MOMENTS

I was thinking of some other ancient person not Copernicus. My  bad, OOPS MAGIC MUST EXIST BECAUSE I MISQUOTED THE WRONG PERSON! God made me do it! 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote:

drdoubleu wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

"POOF" a human magically came from dirt.

If it is worth defending it should be worth self examination.

 

You should realize that this is what evolution also teaches, we came from volcanic rock and hydrogen gas. Only this can't happen. The Miller Ulrey experiment is debunked because they disregarded the scientific statement that the ozone was created millions of years after organisms. http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm But that can't be the case because without an ozone hydrogen will escape and then amino acids, DNA, etc can't be formed. So poof we came from volcanic rocks over millions of years seems to be less likely. Also, I am going to disregard the rest of your hollow attempts at philosophy. I deal with science not statements such as can god create a rock even he can't lift.

 

As for the muslims, I don't think a god would instruct you on how to beat your wife and practice monogamy in life but then polygamy in the next. Also, the bible has strong points, such as when it was written if by man for man, then it would have used the scientific findings at that time and not those that we are discovering thousands of years later.

 

THE BIBLE

SCIENCE NOW

SCIENCE THEN

The earth is a sphere
(Isaiah 40:22).

The earth is a sphere

The earth was a flat disk.

Incalculable number of stars
(Jeremiah 33:22).

Incalculable number of stars

Only 1,100 stars.

Free float of earth in space
(Job 26:7).

Free float of earth in space.

Earth sat on a large animal.

Creation made of invisible
elements (Hebrews 11:3).

Creation made of invisible
elements (atoms).

Science was ignorant on
the subject.

Each star is different
(1 Corinthians 15:41).

Each star is different.

All stars were the same.

Light moves
(Job 38:19,20).

Light moves.

Light was fixed in place.

Air has weight
(Job 28:25).

Air has weight.

Air was weightless.

Winds blow in cyclones
(Ecclesiastes 1:6).

Winds blow in cyclones.

Winds blew straight.

Blood is the source of life
and health
(Leviticus 17:11).

Blood is the source of life
and health.

Sick people must be bled.

Ocean floor contains deep
valleys and mountains
(2 Samuel 22:16;
Jonah 2:6).

Ocean floor contains deep
valleys and mountains.

The ocean floor was flat.

Ocean contains springs
(Job 38:16).

Ocean contains springs.

Ocean fed only by rivers
and rain.

When dealing with disease,
hands should be washed
under running water
(Leviticus 15:13).

When dealing with disease,
hands should be washed
under running water.

Hands washed in still water.

 

Isaiah40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

(Note) Brian already explaind your gaff.
Jeremiah 33:22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.

(Note) The host of heaven? If there is more than one star then it would say "hosts" of heaven not "host". This verse is talking about god cannot be mesured. AND AGAIN, the self serving writers talked about their god favoring suckups IE "David my servant". This passage is about god, not stars.

Job:26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

(Note)The earth is not "floating" like a boat floats on water. It is pulled by the gravity of the sun and is falling around the sun "orbit". The solar system in turn is rotating around the center of the galaxy. The galaxy is also in motion constantly moving forward. Now scientist dont know if that will happen indefinatly or that it will retract like a rubber band and colapse on itself.

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

(Note)How the hell you get atoms, protons, electrons or neutrons out of that vauge metaphore is beyond me. Can I have what you are smoking?

Corinthians 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

(Note)This passage does not call the sun a star, it goes out of its way to treat it as seperate than a star. "One glory for the sun" different glories for stars. This writer is not treating the sun as a star which it is.
"one star differse from another" DUH! again, it doesnt take a genious to observe that.

If you took a giant flashlight and a tiny keychain flashlight out to a tribe of people who'd never seen a flashlight before they to would say, "Those lights are different". But that would not mean they'd know what a flashlight was or how to build one.


Job:38:19-Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,

(Note) Where the hell do you get 'light moves" out of this? Are you telling me that the writers of the Bible knew the MPH of light based on this passage?

20:That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?

(Note) This sounds like the writer is talking about "God's house" not light or waves or particals.

Job28:25 To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure.

(Note) It takes magical beared man to make a windmill or look at a flag and see it moving? It takes magic to know that one amount of water in a bucket will weigh differently than another bucket with a different amount? You think it requires Jesus to do this when it was clear prior polytheists had their own mesurments to mesure the wind and water?

Ecclesiastes 1:6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

(Note) All this says is that the writer, or someone the writer knew observed a cyclone. Again, this is vauge and does not mean the writer knew what environmental conditions would cause one. It doesnt mention ocean tempature, atmospheric temperatures. It doesnt mention that once over land the cyclone can no longer absorbe warm water to fuel it. "I saw a cyclone does mean the writer knew what made up a cyclone or what caused it" "God did it" is a piss poor excuse.

Leviticus 17:11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

(Note) once again the writer is expressing what he thinks god wants humans to do. It is not talking about the physical atributes of a blood cell, this verse is saying give up your blood to make up for what you have done bad.

2 Samuel 22:1622: And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the worldwere discovered at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.

(Note) Again, this doesnt adress depth in numbers. I am quite sure there were high tides, low tides and floods that drained parts of bodies of water and droughts that dried up bodies of water, sink holes and earthquakes that changed the face of bodies of water back then as they do today. And again, this passage  threatend obtaining knowlege by condemning the denial (Rebuking) of the Lord. "If you try to figure out why this happened I will punish you!" Having knowlege of how the world works is wrong?

Jonah 2:6I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.

(Note) Where in this one does it talk about ocean floors and ocean depth? The first verse in this claim you qouted does a body of water , but I explaind why that one was false. THIS verse only says "bottem of the mountain". How in the hell does that constitute ocean floor? The writer was refuring to the base of the mountain. Not all Mountains are island mountains, some are smack dab in the center of continents.

Job 38:16Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

(Note) Again, vauge metaphore and widely known event by all the cultures prior, up to, during and after Hebrews and Christians. It still did not mean they knew what was causing the ocean to fuel the springs. All this says is that an ancient person observed it. So what? Saying that the sky is blue doesnt mean the person saying "The sky is blue" knows why it is blue. Pleanty of humans on this planet even today see things they dont understand. That doesnt default to Zeus over Vishnu over Jesus.

Laviticus 15:13 And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean.

(Note)SO THE F What? All this says is that that people when they washed themselves felt good afterwords. The ancient romans had running water and you dont believe in Apollo. It feels better to some to get in a shower because the stagnant water doesnt leave a film on you. Again, that doesnt mean the person back then using running water knew that the bacteria would be rinsed away. I see nothing in this verse that talks about germs, types of germs or deseases from not doing such.

You havent proven a thing with this garbage. Just deluded people into false hope of a fairy tale being real, including yourself unfortunatly.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote: triften

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:

First off, there are creosote colonies that are estimated to be 11k years old, King's Holly colonies 43k years old, and quaking aspen colones 80k years old. Also 40 million year old bacteria have been found in insect stomachs encased in amber.

Ah yes I had a feeling someone was going to bring up these models to my attention. Let us look at the key word here: estimated that means they really don't have a set number and base it off of other estimates that they have. One estimate after another all data can become askewed can it not? There have been many claims of plants other than trees being supposedly older than 10,000 years, including the King’s Holly of Tasmania (which was based on fossil remains near the plant) and a colony of Box Huckleberry (based on growth estimates over an area of 25 km2/10 miles2) in Pennsylvania, USA. This right here should give you a clue that the estimate isn’t based on a living model but rather a fossil or dead tree located at or near the location of living specimens. The most notable claims, however, have been about the Creosote Bush (Larrea tridentate) of North America.

(Background Creosote info snipped)

Dating is assumed by estimating the growth rate at which the rings of bushes increase. The debate regarding the age of King Clone demonstrates the inexactness of this uniformitarian approach; it is impossible to accurately determine a plant’s age based on current growth rates. Although I couldn’t find anything about the age presumed on the quaking aspen I can confidently say that it does fit in the model of most trees and shrubs age estimated in the California/Utah regions. Many people had the impression that age must refer to the number of rings, but that was not the case. How were the dates obtained? The trees in this particular stand are genetically identical to each other. That is, they have reproduced by vegetative reproduction from an original tree. This could mean that they have simply transplanted themselves, possibly from fallen branches, or new growth could be occurring from underground root systems. It is assumed that this reproductive process has been continuing for many millennia, hence the speculative ‘long ages’. In some cases, the carbon-14 (14C) dating method has been used on the root system and nearby fragments, and Huon Pine pollen has been found in the sedimentary layers of a nearby lake. If you have ever taken a basic organismal biology course you would know of the often explained the assumptions behind 14C methods and the errors made in interpreting the data.

No individual quaking aspen has ever been dated, by straight-forward tree ring methods, as more than 3,500 years old.

Now you didn't seem to respond directly to my statement other than to imply that Carbon-14 dating is inaccurate enough to make 4.5k years look like 11k or 43k. Carbon dating can be used to find very young (geologically speaking) ages and can be calibrated based on known ages. It has.

Furthermore, your derision for estimates could just as easily be set upon your estimates of the ages of the living things we've talked about.

drdoubleu wrote:

 

Next on to amber. The basis of the age is off of assumptions, the assumption that the amber is 45 million years old, therefore the insect inside is or a sliver older than 45 million years and the bacterial symbionts in its hindgut are also 45 million years old. It’s the basic story of the lady who swallowed the fly, only this time with a 45 million year old age stamped on it. You first have to assume that amber is 45 million years old, and even that isn’t an accurate measurement, esp. using inaccurate and need be outdated measuring. It is interesting to know that insects in amber known as the gladiators have recently been rediscovered thriving on a stony mountain top in Namibia, but somehow have avoided all genetic mutations and evolutionary changes for 45 million years! What exactly is amber? Although amber is universally accepted to be fossil tree resin, no-one knows what forces cause tree resin to harden into amber, and no-one has yet been able to synthesize it artificially (Amber, 16 October 2002). It is also uncertain how organisms are preserved so perfectly inside hardened amber. Evolutionists concede that ‘many interesting problems remain concerning the age of [amber] deposits and their exact origin,’2 but they nevertheless assume that millions of years were needed (Insects in amber, 2 December 2002, Amber in Latvia, 16 October 2002, What is amber?, 16 October 2002).

.

Tree resin turns into amber over millions of years through polymerization. Just because we don't know the exact details of how these things come together doesn't mean that they can't be dated accurately.

Fossils (such as amber) are dated by which strata of rock they are found in. A stratum's age can be determined quite accurately using radiometry (isotopes other than C-14).

drdoubleu wrote:

However, some experts have long thought that amber fossils could have only come about through a worldwide flood. When describing the famous Baltic amber deposits, N. Heribert-Nilsson, then Director of the Swedish Botanical Institute, wrote: ‘The geological and paleobiological facts concerning the layers of amber are impossible to understand unless the explanation is accepted that they are the result of an allochthonous process, including the whole earth (Translated from the original German on p. 1194 of the book Synthetische Artbildung). [allochthonous refers to transport from other locations (from Greek allos, other; chthon, ground), i.e. by powerful water flow—flood. The opposite is autochthonous, i.e. coming from the same place without any need for transport, from Greek autos, self.]

Even experts with a millions-of-years geological perspective acknowledge that ‘appropriate burial conditions’ were necessary for amber formation. To explain why amber deposits are often associated with brown coal (lignite), they surmise that ‘copious resin-producing trees’ were transported by water, then: ‘Wood and resin are buried under the sediment and while the resin becomes amber, the wood becomes lignite. Wet sediments of clay and sand preserve the resin well because they are devoid of oxygen. Large numbers of trees felled, transported, then buried implies lots of floodwater! Also, heat is said to have been a likely factor in promoting resin flow from wood.

Perhaps the Flood waters—heated in places by the ‘fountains of the great deep’ (Genesis 7:11)—provided ideal conditions for large quantities of liquid amber to ooze from mats of floating logs, enveloping insects and other flood debris before hardening (After heavy tropical rain, abundant rain-drowned insects often cover the bottom of pools, and/or float near the surface. As amber’s specific gravity is slightly over one, it floats in saltwater but sinks in fresh water, leaving the possibility that material preserved in amber was either flotsam or settlings, or perhaps both (specific gravity is the density of a substance relative to pure water, which therefore has SG = 1 by definition). Did you know if you heat amber up in a pot of water it just become sap again? It literally is just tree sap without permineralization that we normally see with fossils of other sorts.

triften wrote:

“Secondly, the oldest living thing does not make for a good reference of when a cataclysmic event occured.”

It doesn’t? What would make for a good ‘reference’? Since the bible states that all living things on land were killed then why would it not be reasonable to try and find something still living on land beyond the timeframe of the bible?

If I find a forest where the oldest tree is 200 years old, should I automatically assume that the forest didn't exist 200 years ago? Another possibility is that the trees live on average about 200 years. If the oldest tortise is 175 years old, that doesn't mean that 175 years ago, something wiped out all the tortises.

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:
“Third, the claim of the oldest reef being 4.5k years old is based on a highly inaccurate estimate of coral reef growth.”

For this, I think that I will take the word of marine biologists dedicating 20 years of their life on this subject as opposed to a statement without any backing. However I do have backing to what I said from one of those biologists: Ariel Roth of the Geoscience Research Institute has commented on the fact that estimates of net reef growth rates vary from 0.8 millimetres per year to 80 millimetres per year, whereas actual measurements based on soundings at depth are many times these estimates. Roth suggests a number of reasons for this difference.

The main one is that measurements made at the surface will show lower rates of growth because of exposure to air at low tides and intense ultraviolet light. Lack of light will of course kill a reef—no live coral growth takes place below about 50 metres under the surface. Hence thick atolls such as Eniwetok require the ocean floor to sink as the coral builds. As the coral is lowered, faster growth is possible than that which we measure at the surface.

There are complex factors which both add to the growth of a reef and take away from it. For instance, attack by certain organisms and wave destruction will contribute to a decline in reef size. On the other hand, a growing reef can trap sediments as they are moved along by currents, thus adding to its thickness. Storms can dramatically add to the thickness of a reef by bringing in coral from other areas.

For example, in 1972, Cyclone Bebe ‘constructed’ a rampart of coral rubble 3.5 metres high, 37 metres wide and 18 kilometres long in a few hours.

Given all the above, it seems reasonable to rely on the actual figures reported from depth-sounding measurements for coral reef growth rates, rather than calculations trying to take all these other factors into account. Such reef growth rates have been reported as high as 414 millimetres per year in the Celebes. At such a rate, the entire thickness of the Eniwetok Atoll could have been formed in less than 3,500 years.

In addition, actual experiments indicate that the rate of coral growth can be nearly doubled by increasing the temperature five degrees Celsius (remember that Eniwetok sits on a now-extinct volcano), or increasing the carbonate content of sea water.

To maintain that Eniwetok Atoll could have formed in the time-span since the Flood recorded in Genesis is not at all inconsistent with real-world evidence.

I invite you to read the section referred to by this link, directly addressing coral reef ages.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof26

Given, these estimates of ages are dealing with complex phenomena (sp?), but the age of a reef gives no indication as to the time of a cataclysm.

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:
“Fourth, evidence exists showing that the Saharan desert is upwards of 7 million years old.”

The data that this is based on is highly ambiguous and can have many interpretations. Also, there is much more evidence that states otherwise for the age of this desert.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof23

Ah, right you are. But even still, how does this provide any indication of a flood?

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:
“For a solid thrashing of Flood "evidence", please read the articles mentioned under the "Flood" heading: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CH200-CH799

I’ve been to this site several times in the past. It is hard to follow but from what I read is highly inaccurate and contradicts many scientific facts and findings. For instance one comment was the anchors used in ships were Christianized, a thousand or more years before Christians were even in existence. It would still be the time of the Jews so how would Christian symbols be in play?

Please send me a link to that anchor reference, if you could.

From what you are saying, it maybe that the shape of an anchor was adopted long before the cross became a symbol of Christianity. The Romans used crosses alot before the supposed time of Christ.

So, if the earth was covered in water 4.5k years ago, where were the Egyptians during all this? In fact, they finished the Great Pyramid of Giza right around when this flood was supposed to have taken place and there are pyramids older than that. I'd think a flood suposedly capable of carving the Grand Canyon would have handily erased the pyramids of Egypt.

Another issue with a supposed flood is where all that water came from. If enough water vapor were in our atmosphere, the pressure would be over 950psi (vs. 15 psi normal). Furthermore, when water vapor condenses, it releases heat. Enough rain to cover the planet 4 inches deep would release enough heat to bring the atmosphere to a temp of 144F.

-Triften

 


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Wow, the answers are in the

Wow, the answers are in the bible?

 

Then why for the longest time did the church try to quell all the theories of a round earth, and the earth going round the sun?

Why did they force scientists NOT to prove a heliocentric earth. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Did it ever

Brian37 wrote:

Did it ever occure to you that the writers were competing with other religions? Did it ever occure to you that they merely took what they thought would work in convincing people to convert?

And it is also typical for religion to pick out of science use it to prop up myth and demonize the science it doesnt like.

You claim the writers came up with those ideas.

Pleanty of people before had similar ideas about those things above but yet you arbitrary pick your club to defend rather than pondering that they put it in the book after seeing it somewhere else to put a false veil of credibility to it.

Conning people has always been a part of life, you'd just like to pretend you are not conning yourself or others. The dangerous part of what you are doing is warping the brains of of people and cheating them out of the ability to face reality.

Caperinicus knew tons about the mathmatical paths of stars and he put that down in formula. I suspect religious people after him caught on but were too stupid to incorperate the formulas because they were too busy demonizing them. So latter religions that didnt want to face reality left out the formulas and stuck in flowery metaphore and claimed the idea as original.

Same crap with Kabballah and Scientology. They to pick a buzz word out of science and create bullshit with it too.

Congradulations I wish you well in dumbing down humanity.

 I'd have to say congratulations on being the epitome of arrogance and ignorance.  You keep saying no duh to what I said and things were no brainers yet science didn't know what was going on when people were dying up until the 19th century.  Bleeding is what killed George Washington so even then it was practiced.  I don't even need to get into the rest because condensendance will get you no where with me.  I don't need to prove you wrong because you have already done that for me and anyone with a slight education past the 9th grade level can see your flaws.  Because of your bitter attitude and lack of anything to back up your claims other than your own words I am cutting you off from this feed and ignoring anymore questions from you.  Obviously I put the verses there for you to read.  I don't have time to rewrite the bible on here when you can either open one yourself or google the verses online and read them yourself.  Amazing how bitter you are.

 


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: Question: the

KSMB wrote:
Question: the double doctorate you're working on, in what subjects will that be? And what is a DDS?

DDS is a Doctorate of Dental Science.  I am going into dentistry but taking it to maxillofacial surgery and forensics.  The PhD is in biology/microbiology. 

 


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote: Wow, the

Ophios wrote:

Wow, the answers are in the bible?

 

Then why for the longest time did the church try to quell all the theories of a round earth, and the earth going round the sun?

Why did they force scientists NOT to prove a heliocentric earth.

 

because the basis was from those of the catholic church at the time of corruption.  They didn't know the word very well, barely read the bible and put in their own books and teachings.  They took their own beliefs and mixed them in with their religious authority and power to make what they thought to be true as absolute.  They even told people they had to pay their way into heaven.  This was non biblical and should be noted that catholic and christian are not the same at all.  Catholics have a dogma that should be ended if they want to actually gain knowledge and not left in the dark like they have been for so long.   


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: THE

Sapient wrote:

THE BIBLE

SCIENCE NOW

SCIENCE THEN

The earth is a sphere
(Isaiah 40:22).

The earth is a sphere

The earth was a flat disk.

 

I wish I had time for the whole discussion however I don't. I'll merely illustrate that what is happening here is that DrDoubleU has flipped reality on it's head.

The truth is that Isaiah 40:22 speaks of a CIRCLE, not a SPHERE.  

If you actually study hebrew and the way the language is written you would understand that when stating circle they mean a round object or literally a sphere.  How many people actually say the world is round vs. the world is a sphere?  The word sphere with reference to the earth wasn't even used until the 1400s.  That's a long time for someone to even think the world was round or a circle or a sphere rather than flat.  

 

 

Sapient wrote:

That you would present this and want someone to believe it is troubling to say the least, we are generally a group of people well versed in history and the Churches subversion of a spherical Earth throughout history lasted for hundreds of years to the point where there are still people today that believe in a flat Earth solely based on dogmatic biblical teachings. 

This is a load of crap if I ever heard one.  The flat earth society as your are speaking of aren't even using any sort of religion but rather their 'scientific evidence' for their claims.  http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm 

 

 

Sapient wrote:

This is the view of Earth if the Bible was accurate (SEE THE CIRCLE AS REFERRED TO IN THE PASSAGE YOU REFERENCE?):

Here is a student paper from where the above images came laying out multitudes of passages in which the bible shows us the Earth is not a Sphere travelling through space: http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane/eU_LITT.

 This guy is an idiot.  What school is he a student for?  I went through about ten of the bible verses and he has only taken a small part of the verse for his claims.  If you read the whole verse it doesn't even have to do with the earth itself or being flat etc.  It was actually funny to see how people can misquote something so easily to make it support their own data.  IE.  bible vs. about joining the sticks together the mormons use in reference to proof for the book of mormon but if you read the whole verse and the verse after it you realize that it is really talking about the northern and southern kingdoms being united into one.
 

http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm

___________

 

Sapient wrote:

Just some thoughts on the subversion of science by Christianity:

"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both psychologically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith."

Formal Church declaration in its indictment of Galileo

____________

Once again basing ones beliefs and including a religion in it.  Just because you say something and include religion doesn't mean you know what you are talking about or that it fits with scripture.  He actually pissed off the church quite a bit with this quote. 

 

 

Sapient wrote:

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."

Cardinal Bellarmine, during the trial of Galileo, 1615

 

 Once again a stupid quote from a man who is trying to prove what he says as right by including his faith in religion in it.  This proves nothing.

 


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote: Warning: the

Ophios wrote:

Warning: the user drdoubleu has confounded abiogenesis with evolution.

 

Well then tell me, how did you get to evolution withiout starting with abiogensis?  Panspermia?   Seriously, I think you need to learn the dogmatic trend of evolution and know that it didnt' start with fish in the sea, you have to start before that, remember according to the theories of science the earth was rocks pulled together by their own gravity, super heated cooled etc.....but where is life on a super heated sterile environment with limited chemical elements?  See....It's flawed. 


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote: Now you

triften wrote:

Now you didn't seem to respond directly to my statement other than to imply that Carbon-14 dating is inaccurate enough to make 4.5k years look like 11k or 43k. Carbon dating can be used to find very young (geologically speaking) ages and can be calibrated based on known ages. It has.

Furthermore, your derision for estimates could just as easily be set upon your estimates of the ages of the living things we've talked about.

 

I did respond directly.  In sum, the estimates made on the ages of these trees as you believe were based on fossils near the trees and not actually the trees themselve.  No ring core samples were taken and when they were it was found that they could not be older than 4000 years give or take 100 years based on growth cycles of trees.   I based my answer solely on a measurement that we find the most accurate today, counting the rings.  It isn't exact but it gives you a very very close rough estimate.  You can't count 4000 rings and say that the tree that is still living is 11,000 years old.  That means for 7,000 years it went on a hunger strike and forgot to go through its normal growth cycle.

triften wrote:

Tree resin turns into amber over millions of years through polymerization. Just because we don't know the exact details of how these things come together doesn't mean that they can't be dated accurately.

Fossils (such as amber) are dated by which strata of rock they are found in. A stratum's age can be determined quite accurately using radiometry (isotopes other than C-14).

Millions of years and polymerization, that is interesting.  That means you would find more trees and sap over more periods of time.  But you don't.  You find it through one sedimentary level.  Actually to tell you the truth what they don't tell you is that when they find a lot of these trees they are still standing upright and somehow go through layers of sediment that supposedly took a few million years to lay down.  That is impossible.  Even so, to take millions of year, amber wouldn't be in the massive chunks we find it in, it would be micro to macroscopic due to weathering and dispersal from breaking apart in rain, trampling etc.  radiometry isn't much more accurate.  One of my geologist friends pulled a little nasty prank on someone who did radiometry.  He took clay and formed it into a rock with layers that made it look like it came from the Grand Canyon, hardened it and sent it out to two different places.  One he said he found at the top of the canyon, the other he said he found near the bottom about 50 feet up in the wall.  Guess what?  they came back stating with their measurements that the rock was as old as the supposed ages of those layers of ground...the one said it was the age at the top of the canyon the other said it was at the bottom.  The conclusion....it's still not accurate and based on a person's biased notions of how old certain layers are.   

triften wrote:

If I find a forest where the oldest tree is 200 years old, should I automatically assume that the forest didn't exist 200 years ago? Another possibility is that the trees live on average about 200 years. If the oldest tortise is 175 years old, that doesn't mean that 175 years ago, something wiped out all the tortises.

No, the basis of this would support evidence that the old climax community started its rise 200 years ago and the old canopy is now becoming the new climax community.  Not all trees have the same average life span.  The measurements I'm basing my statements on are species that can long withstand 5000 years of life.  Interesting to know that after I stated why they aren't 11,000 years old you are now backpeddalling and saying that they can only be 200 years old.   Which one is it?  You had belief in something that I showed wrong so then you try to take what I showed and disproved it on the basis of another tree species?   No offense, I just was entertained.  The tortoise is irrelevant, we are basing it on older living models.  We know trees can live over 5000 years old from other fossils and such, but what we dont' see is those same trees today being older than 4600 years old which draws support to my beliefs.   

 

triften wrote:

I invite you to read the section referred to by this link, directly addressing coral reef ages.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof26

Given, these estimates of ages are dealing with complex phenomena (sp?), but the age of a reef gives no indication as to the time of a cataclysm.

That's interesting, BUT you didn't see the huge problem here:  The guy you are reading that is writing this doesn't have sufficient education to make claims.  meaning he's not a doctor or holds anything higher than a bachelors at best from what I see.  Plus his scientific facts if you will are based on articles that have been outdated for on average 25 years.  If we haven't found new scientific data in a 25 year gap we're screwed in regards to learning.   I think the newest article was from 1993....still that's way too old.  That's like this one professor I had that told the class that the results on fluorosis (darkening of teeth decay of bones due to fluoride) was lies.....based on a journal from 1947!!! 

 

I'll try to find the quote later on the anchors, it literally is anchors, but they say they are pagan worship rocks or some crap like that....also in regards to the water, you should either read the bible or I can find a site for you.  I've run out of time for today.

 

Dr. W 


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
Triften, Dave E. Matson has

Triften, Dave E. Matson has a BA in mathematics and he's arguing against a Ph D. individual.  Also, I'm still going to base my understandings of coral reef growth from Ph. D. and MD level marine biologists than a community college guy who probably has only swam in a public pool.


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
Triften, I almost forgot,

Triften,

I almost forgot, you need to relearn what polymerization is.  I don't know what definition you are using but I really don't think that once a tree is dead that the sap is going to continue to use RNA polymerase and DNA polymerase to continue to reproduce proteins to the point that it is going to harden.  Even so....polymerization doesn't happen here.  Like I said before, you can heat up amber and it turns back into sap, you should smell it, it smells like the trees it came from.  And yet it remains a gooey sticky sap afterwards, which reverses the hardening meaning that it is still in pure form as the day it was buried, just hardened and not really changed into a fossil as we see bones, shell, trees etc.  The trees themselves don't fossilize, they turn into a type of light coal.

 

Have a great day. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote: Brian37

drdoubleu wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Did it ever occure to you that the writers were competing with other religions? Did it ever occure to you that they merely took what they thought would work in convincing people to convert?

And it is also typical for religion to pick out of science use it to prop up myth and demonize the science it doesnt like.

You claim the writers came up with those ideas.

Pleanty of people before had similar ideas about those things above but yet you arbitrary pick your club to defend rather than pondering that they put it in the book after seeing it somewhere else to put a false veil of credibility to it.

Conning people has always been a part of life, you'd just like to pretend you are not conning yourself or others. The dangerous part of what you are doing is warping the brains of of people and cheating them out of the ability to face reality.

Caperinicus knew tons about the mathmatical paths of stars and he put that down in formula. I suspect religious people after him caught on but were too stupid to incorperate the formulas because they were too busy demonizing them. So latter religions that didnt want to face reality left out the formulas and stuck in flowery metaphore and claimed the idea as original.

Same crap with Kabballah and Scientology. They to pick a buzz word out of science and create bullshit with it too.

Congradulations I wish you well in dumbing down humanity.

I'd have to say congratulations on being the epitome of arrogance and ignorance. You keep saying no duh to what I said and things were no brainers yet science didn't know what was going on when people were dying up until the 19th century. Bleeding is what killed George Washington so even then it was practiced. I don't even need to get into the rest because condensendance will get you no where with me. I don't need to prove you wrong because you have already done that for me and anyone with a slight education past the 9th grade level can see your flaws. Because of your bitter attitude and lack of anything to back up your claims other than your own words I am cutting you off from this feed and ignoring anymore questions from you. Obviously I put the verses there for you to read. I don't have time to rewrite the bible on here when you can either open one yourself or google the verses online and read them yourself. Amazing how bitter you are.

 

Listen dipwad, I admited my error in quoting that guy in a later post.

You failed to see see where I went through and reviewed every single passage quoted. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see the  bullshit you are selling. 

And I am quite sure the biologists here would agree with my assesment that crap like that chart is noting but trying to retrofit science and bastardize it based on vauge passages.

You want to dumb down people so they can be cheerleaders for Christ. If you valued science you wouldnt be pulling this crap nor would you care where the evidence would lead you.

Christians did not invent science so give it up.

Bitter? Who the hell are you to tell me what I am feeling? You are not my neurons. But you'd have people believe that a magical man with a pitchfork is yanking my neurons around while another magical bearded man trys to stop the guy with the pitchfork. How bitter you are that your religion has been caught in a lie?

You dont like my review of those scriptures because it makes you uncomfortable that I see through your scam.

Now, since you nit pick at my spelling and misquotes I'll ask anyone of the biologists on this board to tell me where my assesments were wrong. But they'd still agree with me that your garbage is still that, no matter how much you dress it up. 

Kabbalah

Scientology

Crapinism

All the same junk attempting to prop up myth. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: drdoubleu

Brian37 wrote:
drdoubleu wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

"POOF" a human magically came from dirt.

If it is worth defending it should be worth self examination.

 

You should realize that this is what evolution also teaches, we came from volcanic rock and hydrogen gas. Only this can't happen. The Miller Ulrey experiment is debunked because they disregarded the scientific statement that the ozone was created millions of years after organisms. http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm But that can't be the case because without an ozone hydrogen will escape and then amino acids, DNA, etc can't be formed. So poof we came from volcanic rocks over millions of years seems to be less likely. Also, I am going to disregard the rest of your hollow attempts at philosophy. I deal with science not statements such as can god create a rock even he can't lift.

 

As for the muslims, I don't think a god would instruct you on how to beat your wife and practice monogamy in life but then polygamy in the next. Also, the bible has strong points, such as when it was written if by man for man, then it would have used the scientific findings at that time and not those that we are discovering thousands of years later.

 

THE BIBLE

SCIENCE NOW

SCIENCE THEN

The earth is a sphere
(Isaiah 40:22).

The earth is a sphere

The earth was a flat disk.

Incalculable number of stars
(Jeremiah 33:22).

Incalculable number of stars

Only 1,100 stars.

Free float of earth in space
(Job 26:7).

Free float of earth in space.

Earth sat on a large animal.

Creation made of invisible
elements (Hebrews 11:3).

Creation made of invisible
elements (atoms).

Science was ignorant on
the subject.

Each star is different
(1 Corinthians 15:41).

Each star is different.

All stars were the same.

Light moves
(Job 38:19,20).

Light moves.

Light was fixed in place.

Air has weight
(Job 28:25).

Air has weight.

Air was weightless.

Winds blow in cyclones
(Ecclesiastes 1:6).

Winds blow in cyclones.

Winds blew straight.

Blood is the source of life
and health
(Leviticus 17:11).

Blood is the source of life
and health.

Sick people must be bled.

Ocean floor contains deep
valleys and mountains
(2 Samuel 22:16;
Jonah 2:6).

Ocean floor contains deep
valleys and mountains.

The ocean floor was flat.

Ocean contains springs
(Job 38:16).

Ocean contains springs.

Ocean fed only by rivers
and rain.

When dealing with disease,
hands should be washed
under running water
(Leviticus 15:13).

When dealing with disease,
hands should be washed
under running water.

Hands washed in still water.

 

Isaiah40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

(Note) Brian already explaind your gaff.
Jeremiah 33:22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.

(Note) The host of heaven? If there is more than one star then it would say "hosts" of heaven not "host". This verse is talking about god cannot be mesured. AND AGAIN, the self serving writers talked about their god favoring suckups IE "David my servant". This passage is about god, not stars.

Job:26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

(Note)The earth is not "floating" like a boat floats on water. It is pulled by the gravity of the sun and is falling around the sun "orbit". The solar system in turn is rotating around the center of the galaxy. The galaxy is also in motion constantly moving forward. Now scientist dont know if that will happen indefinatly or that it will retract like a rubber band and colapse on itself.

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

(Note)How the hell you get atoms, protons, electrons or neutrons out of that vauge metaphore is beyond me. Can I have what you are smoking?

Corinthians 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

(Note)This passage does not call the sun a star, it goes out of its way to treat it as seperate than a star. "One glory for the sun" different glories for stars. This writer is not treating the sun as a star which it is.
"one star differse from another" DUH! again, it doesnt take a genious to observe that.

If you took a giant flashlight and a tiny keychain flashlight out to a tribe of people who'd never seen a flashlight before they to would say, "Those lights are different". But that would not mean they'd know what a flashlight was or how to build one.


Job:38:19-Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,

(Note) Where the hell do you get 'light moves" out of this? Are you telling me that the writers of the Bible knew the MPH of light based on this passage?

20:That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?

(Note) This sounds like the writer is talking about "God's house" not light or waves or particals.

Job28:25 To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure.

(Note) It takes magical beared man to make a windmill or look at a flag and see it moving? It takes magic to know that one amount of water in a bucket will weigh differently than another bucket with a different amount? You think it requires Jesus to do this when it was clear prior polytheists had their own mesurments to mesure the wind and water?

Ecclesiastes 1:6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

(Note) All this says is that the writer, or someone the writer knew observed a cyclone. Again, this is vauge and does not mean the writer knew what environmental conditions would cause one. It doesnt mention ocean tempature, atmospheric temperatures. It doesnt mention that once over land the cyclone can no longer absorbe warm water to fuel it. "I saw a cyclone does mean the writer knew what made up a cyclone or what caused it" "God did it" is a piss poor excuse.

Leviticus 17:11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

(Note) once again the writer is expressing what he thinks god wants humans to do. It is not talking about the physical atributes of a blood cell, this verse is saying give up your blood to make up for what you have done bad.

2 Samuel 22:1622: And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the worldwere discovered at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.

(Note) Again, this doesnt adress depth in numbers. I am quite sure there were high tides, low tides and floods that drained parts of bodies of water and droughts that dried up bodies of water, sink holes and earthquakes that changed the face of bodies of water back then as they do today. And again, this passage threatend obtaining knowlege by condemning the denial (Rebuking) of the Lord. "If you try to figure out why this happened I will punish you!" Having knowlege of how the world works is wrong?

Jonah 2:6I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.

(Note) Where in this one does it talk about ocean floors and ocean depth? The first verse in this claim you qouted does a body of water , but I explaind why that one was false. THIS verse only says "bottem of the mountain". How in the hell does that constitute ocean floor? The writer was refuring to the base of the mountain. Not all Mountains are island mountains, some are smack dab in the center of continents.

Job 38:16Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

(Note) Again, vauge metaphore and widely known event by all the cultures prior, up to, during and after Hebrews and Christians. It still did not mean they knew what was causing the ocean to fuel the springs. All this says is that an ancient person observed it. So what? Saying that the sky is blue doesnt mean the person saying "The sky is blue" knows why it is blue. Pleanty of humans on this planet even today see things they dont understand. That doesnt default to Zeus over Vishnu over Jesus.

Laviticus 15:13 And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean.

(Note)SO THE F What? All this says is that that people when they washed themselves felt good afterwords. The ancient romans had running water and you dont believe in Apollo. It feels better to some to get in a shower because the stagnant water doesnt leave a film on you. Again, that doesnt mean the person back then using running water knew that the bacteria would be rinsed away. I see nothing in this verse that talks about germs, types of germs or deseases from not doing such.

You havent proven a thing with this garbage. Just deluded people into false hope of a fairy tale being real, including yourself unfortunatly.

Ok folks, since Mr. Cheerleader doesnt want to take it from me, can I have some volunteers to review my review and tell me where I Could improve on my arguments on any given passage, where I did get it right and where I could improve?

I'd also like to know who here thinks any mistakes I might have made defaults to flesh surviving rigor mortis or spirit sperm? ANYONE ANYONE, BUELER? 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:

Sapient wrote:
A LONG EMAIL FOR YOU TO RESPOND TO, I POSTED TWO FOLLOW UPS BELOW: I am rather curious, how many of you started out believing in a religion, but didn't really know much about it? Or believed in a religion and later became atheist? Why do most atheist groups hold the theology that there is no god but concentrate most of their arguments towards Christians, and Jews when there are thousands of cult religions out there and many other religions?

Why are you particularly a Christian? Why do you particularly believe that Jesus died on the Cross so that you could be saved, and not go to Hell? Is it because the things in the Bible seem to correspond with your view of the world as a biologist? If this is so, do you believe the commonalities you perceive between Biology and the Bible are strong enough to reject any other worldview? When a particular worldview such as yours rejects other worldviews as being false, demonic, and also damns the rest of the population to hell then you have the burden to prove that to people who are more cautious to make such an assertion.


Hindu and Buddhist metaphysics are in harmony with modern quantum mechanic theory (http://dma.ucla.edu/events/calendar.php?ID=425)and their relationship has been highly researched and discussed for the last 25 years by physicists and philosophers (If you want, I can elaborate, provide names, peer-reviewed papers, etc.) The Hindu creation story, and Hindu cosmology in general seem to be directly in line with the "Big Bang Theory." Why are you a Christian and not a Hindu?


 

You also have the burden to prove that your perspective on Christianity is more right than the Catholics in Galileo's time because frankly, all of these views on Christianity are confusing for the rest of us or at least it is really confusing to me. How do I know you're right? What percent of Christians have it right?




I think that athiest groups focus on Christian groups because Christianity historically divides people, has been used for power (as you have noted), and also damns people to hell, and also the Christian impulse to convert people violates autonomy of the individual. Also, Christianity, whether one is Christian or not here in the U.S. among other places, is pervasive and present in our daily lives. It's in the the calendar, in politics, films, schools, etc. more than anyother particular worldview. Since it's so pervasive, it has become an issue.


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: You dont

Brian37 wrote:

You dont like my review of those scriptures because it makes you uncomfortable that I see through your scam.

 

I'll just tackle these few.  First, your quote from the bible was way off.  what version were you using?  Because it's a little off.  For instance your snide remark on Jeremiah 33:22  was off.  It literally reads:  I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.....Seems to stand.  This was only one I pointed out.  So I'm not scamming you are just lying and not putting down things right.  It's not my fault you're ignorant and instead of trying to pull scientific proof you sit here and attack me as a person and people around me.  Do you see me attacking you?  No.  I'm better than that.  Your name calling and swearing only contribute to the facts that you are ignorant, misled and lack the ability to argue with rational response.   

Brian37 wrote:
 

 And I am quite sure the biologists here would agree with my assesment that crap like that chart is noting but trying to retrofit science and bastardize it based on vauge passages.

You want to dumb down people so they can be cheerleaders for Christ. If you valued science you wouldnt be pulling this crap nor would you care where the evidence would lead you.

Christians did not invent science so give it up.

 

 This statement once again shows your ignorance and lack of knowledge of science.  First off, I doubt most people on this site have a degree of biology.  I will state that I know some do, but most don't.  

Second you aparently don't know the history of science, its origins and the people involved.  Little do you know that a majority of your biology learnings were contributed and discovered by Christians and followers of Christ.  Just to put a little list down, here are a few of the many (these are the ones you'd know the most) who are creationists, Christians and some of the greatest minds of their time and ours.  Without them, science would be nothing.  Keep in mind, before Darwin, atheists still existed and had their ideas that these people were well aware of.

  • Louis Agassiz (1807-1873; glacial geology)
  • Charles Babbage (1792-1871; computer science)
  • Francis Bacon (1561-1626; scientific method)
  • Robert Boyle (1627-1691; gas dynamics)
  • David Brewster (1781-1868; optical mineralogy)
  • Georges Cuvier (1769-1832; comparative anatomy)
  • Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519; hydraulics)
  • Humphrey Davy (1778-1829; thermokinetics)
  • Henri Fabre (1823-1915; entomology of living insects)
  • Michael Faraday (1791-1867; electromagnetics)
  • John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945; electronics)
  • Joseph Henry (1797-1878; inventor)
  • William Herschel (1738-1822; galactic astronomy)
  • James Joule (1818-1889; reversible thermodynamics)
  • Lord Kelvin (1824-1907; energetics)
  • Johann Kepler (1571-1630; celestial mechanics)
  • Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778; systematic biology)
  • Joseph Lister (1827-1912; antiseptic surgery)
  • Matthew Maury (1806-1873; oceanography)
  • James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879; electrodynamics)
  • Gregor Mendel (1822-1884; genetics)
  • Samuel F. B. Morse (1791-1872; telegraph inventor)
  • Isaac Newton (1642-1727; calculus)
  • Blaise Pascal (1623-1662; hydrostatics)
  • Louis Pasteur (1822-1895; bacteriology)
  • William Ramsay (1852-1916; isotopic chemistry)
  • John Ray (1627-1705; natural history)
  • Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919; dimensional analysis)
  • Bernhard Riemann (1826- 1866; non-Euclidean geometry)
  • James Simpson (1811-1870; gynecology)
  • Nicholas Steno (1631-1686; stratigraphy)
  • George Stokes (1819-1903; fluid mechanics)
  • Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902; pathology)
  • John Woodward (1665-1728; paleontology)


Agassiz, Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Dawson, Virchow, Fabre, and Fleming were strong opponents of evolution.

So once again, you base your statements on the hatred of a religion rather than facts and knowledge.  It's funny when an atheist says that religion is the cause of war because few wars are religious.  We don't stereotype people saying atheists cause Shootings at school....because the recent shootings including the people at columbine were atheists and members of clubs similar to this.  I think one of them even had a shirt on that said survival of the fittest.

Do you see me do that?  No.  Because I'm better than that.  When it comes to me vs. you, I'm the rational one here.

 Let me be your for a minute:

 Islam believes that Jews are not completely human. In fact, it is taught in their schools that Jews are bread from dogs, and apes. I wonder where the ape idea came from? And just like Hitler's Hit List. Those who are considered partly ape, are the same ones who Hitler wanted to exterminate off the face of the earth. Which by the way, were Jews as well. So here we see the connection of humans not being fully human. The reference to ape makes the connection to evolution. And the desire to exterminate makes the connection to Hitler, Darwin, and Islam. And you put it all together, you come up with the theory of death.  Therefore you are no better than a freedom hating nazi whose only goal in life is to exterminate anyone who thinks differently than you regardless of the scientific facts or the social benefits it has.

 I am finished talking to you now.  Don't bother responding because you have been extremely rude, lacked any science or historical facts, data or references.  You really can have a rational response to someone's hatred towards someone who knows more than them.

 

Finished. 

 


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

 

Corinthians 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

(Note)This passage does not call the sun a star, it goes out of its way to treat it as seperate than a star. "One glory for the sun" different glories for stars. This writer is not treating the sun as a star which it is.
"one star differse from another" DUH! again, it doesnt take a genious to observe that.

 

 

I couldn't resist.  once again you are ignorant to history.  Science used to teach that all stars are the same, so your statement proves you don't know science in the past.  The point was that the bible was going against the teachings of science from that time for at least a thousand years beyond.  Noting that they didn't call the sun a star doesn't mean a thing.  Did they not call it a star or call it something that concludes it wasn't a star?

Absolutely not.  How often do you hear people say don't stare into the star?  You don't!  you hear don't stare into the sun.  

 Now I'm finished.  


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
I am christian because of

I am christian because of several reasons, the stories in the bible correlate with the history of the time and do not violate the historical events.  Science and history confirm events time and time again.  The god of Chrstianity is different than any other god...I really don't feel like elaborating so don't challenge me on this because I have done it enough times.  The people of the bible existed, their deaths and bodies correlate with the time frame and sites.  The names of cities are still here today, the places still exist, there are millions of artifacts and archeological sites throughout the places of the bible that support the stories.....including the fact that the bible is actually used to locate sites.  My views as a biologist are only part of the support needed for my faith.  This part is the part I use for the scientifically naive or those who have been tainted with theories on theories on theories to the point that they see it as the scientific absolute and have been clouded to not see the real world actually contradicts a majority of the theories.  The prophecies of the prophets have been fullfilled I believe Jesus Christ was a real person, archeology and history confirms this regardless of what other people may say.  Aparently they don't understand the size of community, the location, the wars, the fires, the other non biblical documents etc. when making their claims.  His death and ressurrection were recorded by numberous writers in the bible.  If such a thing didn't occur then the romans would have said they found a body, such an event never happened.  I could go on and on, but my faith is extremely strong.  Actually speaking to people on this site makes my faith even stronger and provides me with more information on how people are misled so I can study more on it.  Other than that it seems to be the same questions time and time again.  

 Buddha was a hindu, so much of his beliefs were taken from his original religion.  He was a drunk too...which might explain how he say a talking pink elephant....but do you really think someone would sit under a tree for 20 years?  

 

I honestly can't say how many christians have it right.  I can't even say that I have all the answers.  that is why I study the word on a daily basis if I can.  I am continually growing in knowledge and ungerstanding.  But I don't base the bible as my only source, I also try and study the history of the time, when you do this, you get not only a growth in faith but also know thehistory of theworld at the time and it almost comes to life.  

 My best friend is hindu, she has been all her life.  the funny thing about hinduism is that even hidus can't answer questions about their own religion.  they don't know how many gods they have, they don't know which ones are the right ones to worship etc.  One of my friends decided to become a christian when his grandpa spent 20 years eating rice and in prayer in the corner of their house.  when he died a calf was born and later walked and stood in the spot where the grandpa used to pray.  they thought that that was him reincarnated.  I think it's a little contradictory to say in a religion that your level of faith bases your rewards for the next life and then have someone so dedicated not even come back as another human but rather a farm animal.

 Catholics have many things right but many more things wrong.  To understand you must study the bible and understand the contradictions they have.  They base their dogma on rituals and traditions, not scripture.  

Really I don't have a burden to prove my faith to anyone but myself.  I have grown up in science, but also understand the changes it has had in just my lifetime.  The bible hasn't changed.  I can pick up a bible from 1599 and have it read the same as 1999.  Yes there are books that aren't in the bible but that's because they are either not written by first hand accountants, outdated past the time of the apostles, or plainly don't have anything important to say.   The bible is extremely long and if properly studied takes even longer.  It has taken me three months just to study half of Mark.  why?  because I am trying to learn it to the best of my abilities. 

How do you know I have it right?  Study anything I have said and you will see.  Study the bible and then study what I have said and you will see what I am saying is right.  If it wasn't then I wouldn't be much of a researcher in biology and faith now would I?

It is true that christianity historically divides people, but so does every other religion and non religion view.  Science has contributed to a lot of deaths in the past, but it seems that christianity is the main target of accusations.  

The deal with the films and such I think is quite untrue.  You may see a lot of morals or such in a few movies but you can't watch horror films, goreflicks, chickflicks etc and say wow that was quite biblical.  My favorite is the groups that tried to get The Passion removed because it was so gory then the same people went and watched Saw I-III.  Give me a break.

I really don't think that Christianity violates determining moral responsibility for one's actions.  In fact I think that it does quite the opposite and improves it immensly.  Have you ever immagined what would happen if people followed the ten commandments?   I can assure you this: Murder, STDs, teen pregnancy, suicide, theft etc would be nonexistant.  If people actually stopped having sex and waited until marriage, they would be able to better educate their kids, raise them better, lower the risk of stds, premature birth, drop the fecundity rate down enough that overpopulation wouldn't be a threat anymore and governments could use the money normally used on single moms and teen moms on more important issues.

Let me ask you this, when was the last time an atheist, hindu, muslim, LDS, etc got together and helped people in need?  

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote: Brian37

drdoubleu wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

Corinthians 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

(Note)This passage does not call the sun a star, it goes out of its way to treat it as seperate than a star. "One glory for the sun" different glories for stars. This writer is not treating the sun as a star which it is.
"one star differse from another" DUH! again, it doesnt take a genious to observe that.

 

I couldn't resist. once again you are ignorant to history. Science used to teach that all stars are the same, so your statement proves you don't know science in the past. The point was that the bible was going against the teachings of science from that time for at least a thousand years beyond. Noting that they didn't call the sun a star doesn't mean a thing. Did they not call it a star or call it something that concludes it wasn't a star?

Absolutely not. How often do you hear people say don't stare into the star? You don't! you hear don't stare into the sun.

Now I'm finished.

No you are not. You'll be back.

"Science used to teach that all stars were the same"

PROVE IT!  Sources?

That passage as I said treats the sun seperatly and you agree that they did not call it a star which means the writers had no clue that it was a star.

Secondly the "lights" in the sky are not all stars which that passage indicates the writers thought. It mentions nothing about planets or galaxies wich because of their distance away from the earth may seem to be a "star".

If a 5' 4" woman is standing next to a 6' woman any idot could see that they are different sizes, but that would not mean that the the person first meating them would know their background, where they grew up or even their names.

 Same with genisis wich is the biggist bullshit when it comes to science.

Genisis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Nowhere in that passage does it mention that the sun bounces light off the moon. Nowhere does it mention Mars, Saturn ect..ect ect. It doesn't mention galaxies because they would be too small and would seem to be just a star.

Not to mention the fact that the Bible has "light" already created and seperated from day and night 1:4,5

So on day one he creates light. Again one day 4 he does it again?

Did he mess up?

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

DAY FOUR 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

AGAIN ON DAY 4 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

 1:3 and 1:16 might as well be the same passage minus the claim of wich day it was.

1:14 again doesnt talk about planets or Saturn's rings or comits or galaxies.

Where did the light come from in verse 1:3-4 DAY #1 ? If the sun was created on the 4th day? 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
hello wrote: Why are you

hello wrote:

Why are you particularly a Christian? Why do you particularly believe that Jesus died on the Cross so that you could be saved, and not go to Hell? Is it because the things in the Bible seem to correspond with your view of the world as a biologist? If this is so, do you believe the commonalities you perceive between Biology and the Bible are strong enough to reject any other worldview? When a particular worldview such as yours rejects other worldviews as being false, demonic, and also damns the rest of the population to hell then you have the burden to prove that to people who are more cautious to make such an assertion.

 

One other thing, in my days I have seen many miracles that have also contributed to my faith.  When going on tour with a ministry the ministry had a passage for the trip.  We were getting ready to go and we were having financial problems and needed 2300 dollars for the trip and it was the next day.  We were also having other problems as well we prayed to God and asked for guidance.  We decided for fun to take the bible spin the pages and point to a verse to see what it said....we were just in a weird situation then, we pointed to the exact verse that the mission was based on.  The chances of that happening are 1 in 31,273 chance.  Also the day we were leaving we received a check in the mail for 2300 exactly.  Many other events like this happened on our trip.  This here strengthens my faith.

There was a guy at my youth group dying of cancer, he ended his chemo because it wasn't working for him.  One week he goes in and full of cancer the next week after numberous prayers is completely cured and healthy again.

My dad, probably one of the smartest people I know in wisdom used to be an athiest.  He has seen your side of things for many years, but also now sees things on my side a lot more than I do.  He is propbably one of the most devoted christians I know now.  His knowledge of the world is amazing and has studied the history of the bible well beyond me and can assure that without a doubt christianity is true and science screws up a lot of the time and doesn't prove it wrong. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote: Brian37

drdoubleu wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

Corinthians 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

(Note)This passage does not call the sun a star, it goes out of its way to treat it as seperate than a star. "One glory for the sun" different glories for stars. This writer is not treating the sun as a star which it is.
"one star differse from another" DUH! again, it doesnt take a genious to observe that.

 

 

I couldn't resist.  once again you are ignorant to history.  Science used to teach that all stars are the same, so your statement proves you don't know science in the past.  The point was that the bible was going against the teachings of science from that time for at least a thousand years beyond.  Noting that they didn't call the sun a star doesn't mean a thing.  Did they not call it a star or call it something that concludes it wasn't a star?

Absolutely not.  How often do you hear people say don't stare into the star?  You don't!  you hear don't stare into the sun.  

 Now I'm finished.  

Where did science believe all starts were 'the same'?  That would contradict direct observation - they are plainly different brightnesses and colors, so they certainly would never have said they are identical, but clearly they would have had a theory that assumed they were basically similar types of objects.
With modern intruments we have learned more details on just how and why they differ, but there does seem be a distinct lack of spectroscopic data in the Bible. Just a statement that they are different, which is obvious to the naked eye, especially in unpolluted skies.
They clearly treated the Sun as a distinctly different thing from the stars, you would really have to do even more eye-squinting reading between the lines to find anything even hinting at the fact that the Sun is just another star, which happened to be much, much closer than the other ones.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu

drdoubleu wrote:

Triften,

I almost forgot, you need to relearn what polymerization is.  I don't know what definition you are using but I really don't think that once a tree is dead that the sap is going to continue to use RNA polymerase and DNA polymerase to continue to reproduce proteins to the point that it is going to harden.  Even so....polymerization doesn't happen here.  Like I said before, you can heat up amber and it turns back into sap, you should smell it, it smells like the trees it came from.  And yet it remains a gooey sticky sap afterwards, which reverses the hardening meaning that it is still in pure form as the day it was buried, just hardened and not really changed into a fossil as we see bones, shell, trees etc.  The trees themselves don't fossilize, they turn into a type of light coal.

 

Have a great day. 


You drdoubleu need to learn a few things outside your specialty.
Polymerisation in general does not require polymerase, that is only involved in the context of certain molecules within living cells.
It also happens under various other conditions, depending on the particular substances involved. Plastic polymers do not rely on polymerase, for a start.
Some molecules will polymerise under just the influence of UV light - there are may synthetic resins which behave this way, just as the natural resin, amber, does. I am a little surprised you didn't refer to this, as it is commonly used in dentistry.
Give long enogh periods of time, this will tend to happen spontaneously, with little or no UV, altho there will normally be enough from the Sun until the stuff gets buried.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote: Brian37

drdoubleu wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
 

Christians did not invent science so give it up.

 

 This statement once again shows your ignorance and lack of knowledge of science....

Second you aparently don't know the history of science, its origins and the people involved. 

I snipped out your diatribe that had nothing to do with the point other than to divert attention from the very valid argument that Brian37 made.

He said, "Christians did not invent science" and you went into an emotianal abhorrent tirade of epithets including "you aparently don't know the history of science."  So go ahead Mr. Masters, tell us the name of the men who "invented science."

I'll help you since you let religion cloud your dedication to science:

Thales of Miletus - a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, is considered to be the father of science becaused he first encouraged naturalistic explanations of the world, without the supernatural.  (couldn't be Christian, lived before Christ was born)

Aristotle - the last of the three great influential ancient Greek philosophers, although not considered to be a scientist by today's standards, nevertheless, he laid the foundations for today's scientific method by espousing the view that knowledge should be based on empirical observations instead of intuition or faith.  (couldn't be Christian, lived before Christ was born) 

 

Quote:
I am finished talking to you now.  Don't bother responding because you have been extremely rude, lacked any science or historical facts, data or references.  You really can have a rational response to someone's hatred towards someone who knows more than them.

Abhorrent.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote: I am

drdoubleu wrote:
I am finished talking to you now.

 Enter another post...

Brian37 wrote:
drdoubleu wrote:

Now I'm finished.

No you are not. You'll be back.

Agreed Brian.  And I wish I had more time to be engaging in more than small points, but I don't feel the need to deluge everyone with information to make up for my poor arguments.

The original insult to you telling you he wasn't going to respond anymore has now been proven to be a lie.  Since we have conclusive proof that the dental student lies, I think we should factor this understanding of him when reading his arguments.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote: science

drdoubleu wrote:

science screws up a lot of the time 

I no longer believe you graduated college with a degree in biology. 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote: I am

drdoubleu wrote:

I am christian because of several reasons, the stories in the bible correlate with the history of the time and do not violate the historical events. Science and history confirm events time and time again. The god of Chrstianity is different than any other god...I really don't feel like elaborating so don't challenge me on this because I have done it enough times.


I agree with you that the nature of the Christian God is different than that of other gods. I would even go as far as saying that the Christian God is much more difficult to understand than other ones, so much so that people reading the Bible find contradictions in Him which they aren't able to resolve. However, my point is not that. Rather my question to you is why do you believe in Christianity so strongly that you as a scientist are able to reject other worldviews? Have you done significant research on other perspectives, evaluated them scientifically? From what you have posted it seems quite apparent that you have not. In fact it seems that Christianity was the most immediately available religion to you, so this is the only one you researched in depth. If I am wrong about what serious thought you have put into considering other perspectives, please show me how I am wrong. But the fact of your positive believe in Christianity is not enough on its own to reject other worldviews.

 

 

 

drdoubleu wrote:
The people of the bible existed, their deaths and bodies correlate with the time frame and sites. The names of cities are still here today, the places still exist, there are millions of artifacts and archeological sites throughout the places of the bible that support the stories.....including the fact that the bible is actually used to locate sites. My views as a biologist are only part of the support needed for my faith. This part is the part I use for the scientifically naive or those who have been tainted with theories on theories on theories to the point that they see it as the scientific absolute and have been clouded to not see the real world actually contradicts a majority of the theories. The prophecies of the prophets have been fullfilled I believe Jesus Christ was a real person, archeology and history confirms this regardless of what other people may say. Aparently they don't understand the size of community, the location, the wars, the fires, the other non biblical documents etc. when making their claims. His death and ressurrection were recorded by numberous writers in the bible. If such a thing didn't occur then the romans would have said they found a body, such an event never happened. I could go on and on, but my faith is extremely strong. Actually speaking to people on this site makes my faith even stronger and provides me with more information on how people are misled so I can study more on it. Other than that it seems to be the same questions time and time again.


All of this is all good and well, but even if every single word of this is true (the Bible is not my area of expertise, so I can't evaluate the truth of what you are saying) your belief by itself still does not reject other possible worldviews.

drdoubleu wrote:
Buddha was a hindu, so much of his beliefs were taken from his original religion.

what is your point here?


drdoubleu wrote:
He was a drunk too...which might explain how he say a talking pink elephant....but do you really think someone would sit under a tree for 20 years?

what is your point here? Is "do you really think..." really a line of argument coming from you, a Christian who believes in Hell? Can you explain your argument here?

Before we discuss Buddhism, I need to know from you how much you know and have read, and what you understand of it. From what you have written so far, it doesn't seem like you've thought too much about it all, in which case it would be difficult to discuss it with you.

 

drdoubleu wrote:
I honestly can't say how many christians have it right.

Unfortunately, neither can I.

drdoubleu wrote:
My best friend is hindu, she has been all her life. the funny thing about hinduism is that even hidus can't answer questions about their own religion.

This is true of many religions, including Christianity.

drdoubleu wrote:
they don't know how many gods they have, they don't know which ones are the right ones to worship etc. One of my friends decided to become a christian when his grandpa spent 20 years eating rice and in prayer in the corner of their house. when he died a calf was born and later walked and stood in the spot where the grandpa used to pray. they thought that that was him reincarnated. I think it's a little contradictory to say in a religion that your level of faith bases your rewards for the next life and then have someone so dedicated not even come back as another human but rather a farm animal.


Ok. I am happy that you have put a little effort into trying to understand another religious perspective with your best friend. Unfortunately, I don't think you have done a deep enough study of this particular religious perspective to say anything really valuable. But you can prove me wrong.

drdoubleu wrote:
Catholics have many things right but many more things wrong. To understand you must study the bible and understand the contradictions they have. They base their dogma on rituals and traditions, not scripture.

Really I don't have a burden to prove my faith to anyone but myself. I have grown up in science, but also understand the changes it has had in just my lifetime. The bible hasn't changed. I can pick up a bible from 1599 and have it read the same as 1999. Yes there are books that aren't in the bible but that's because they are either not written by first hand accountants, outdated past the time of the apostles, or plainly don't have anything important to say. The bible is extremely long and if properly studied takes even longer. It has taken me three months just to study half of Mark. why? because I am trying to learn it to the best of my abilities.

I am glad you are finding happiness and peace in your personal spiritual endeavors. In order for you to say other people are wrong however, you are going to have to do the same kind of careful study of other texts which represent different worldviews. (If you want to really be able to talk about Hinduism and Buddhism, you can start with the Bhagavad Gita and say, the philosophical writings of Nagarjuna.  If you want to have the authority to reject the atheism, you might want to try Bertrand Russell and more recently Richard Dawkins-whom I haven't read myself. Until then, these are still possibilities of viewing and understanding the world)

drdoubleu wrote:
How do you know I have it right? Study anything I have said and you will see.
ok; as long as you study everything I recommend also.


drdoubleu wrote:
Study the bible and then study what I have said and you will see what I am saying is right. If it wasn't then I wouldn't be much of a researcher in biology and faith now would I?
no, you wouldn't.

drdoubleu wrote:
It is true that christianity historically divides people, but so does every other religion and non religion view.
Yet somehow Christianity is right?

 

drdoubleu wrote:
The deal with the films and such I think is quite untrue. You may see a lot of morals or such in a few movies but you can't watch horror films, goreflicks, chickflicks etc and say wow that was quite biblical. My favorite is the groups that tried to get The Passion removed because it was so gory then the same people went and watched Saw I-III. Give me a break.

My point was about the pervasiveness of Christianity in our culture, in our calendar, our vacations, our weekends, in our schools, our government, not about gore in the movies. There is no debate about teaching the Hindu creation story in Kansas public schools. Why? Hinduism is not as pervasive of a force in Kansas as Christianity.


drdoubleu wrote:
Let me ask you this, when was the last time an atheist, hindu, muslim, LDS, etc got together and helped people in need?
Short answer? today.


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
  Sapient

 

Sapient wrote:

drdoubleu wrote:

science screws up a lot of the time

I no longer believe you graduated college with a degree in biology.

 

then you are an idiot. 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote: then you

drdoubleu wrote:

then you are an idiot. 

 Says the guy who I've proven is a liar.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:
drdoubleu wrote:

Triften,

I almost forgot, you need to relearn what polymerization is. I don't know what definition you are using but I really don't think that once a tree is dead that the sap is going to continue to use RNA polymerase and DNA polymerase to continue to reproduce proteins to the point that it is going to harden. Even so....polymerization doesn't happen here. Like I said before, you can heat up amber and it turns back into sap, you should smell it, it smells like the trees it came from. And yet it remains a gooey sticky sap afterwards, which reverses the hardening meaning that it is still in pure form as the day it was buried, just hardened and not really changed into a fossil as we see bones, shell, trees etc. The trees themselves don't fossilize, they turn into a type of light coal.

 

Have a great day.


You drdoubleu need to learn a few things outside your specialty.
Polymerisation in general does not require polymerase, that is only involved in the context of certain molecules within living cells.
It also happens under various other conditions, depending on the particular substances involved. Plastic polymers do not rely on polymerase, for a start.
Some molecules will polymerise under just the influence of UV light - there are may synthetic resins which behave this way, just as the natural resin, amber, does. I am a little surprised you didn't refer to this, as it is commonly used in dentistry.
Give long enogh periods of time, this will tend to happen spontaneously, with little or no UV, altho there will normally be enough from the Sun until the stuff gets buried.

Hence why I asked what definition he was using.  The polymerization you speak of deals with synthetic resins.  I will acknowledge that as well is that sap is indeed a resin.  The resin in amber however never was introduced to UV light due to flash burial.  The ability to amber to form is under rapid burying conditions.  If this wasn't the case then amber would be found in all different levels of sediment rather than the 30-90 million range....which strangely still has trees sticking upright through 20 million years of layering which kind of throws off the whole slow sediment over millions of years theory.  


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote:

drdoubleu wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

You dont like my review of those scriptures because it makes you uncomfortable that I see through your scam.

 

I'll just tackle these few. First, your quote from the bible was way off. what version were you using? Because it's a little off. For instance your snide remark on Jeremiah 33:22 was off. It literally reads: I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.....Seems to stand. This was only one I pointed out. So I'm not scamming you are just lying and not putting down things right. It's not my fault you're ignorant and instead of trying to pull scientific proof you sit here and attack me as a person and people around me. Do you see me attacking you? No. I'm better than that. Your name calling and swearing only contribute to the facts that you are ignorant, misled and lack the ability to argue with rational response.

Brian37 wrote:

And I am quite sure the biologists here would agree with my assesment that crap like that chart is noting but trying to retrofit science and bastardize it based on vauge passages.

You want to dumb down people so they can be cheerleaders for Christ. If you valued science you wouldnt be pulling this crap nor would you care where the evidence would lead you.

Christians did not invent science so give it up.

This statement once again shows your ignorance and lack of knowledge of science. First off, I doubt most people on this site have a degree of biology. I will state that I know some do, but most don't.

Second you aparently don't know the history of science, its origins and the people involved. Little do you know that a majority of your biology learnings were contributed and discovered by Christians and followers of Christ. Just to put a little list down, here are a few of the many (these are the ones you'd know the most) who are creationists, Christians and some of the greatest minds of their time and ours. Without them, science would be nothing. Keep in mind, before Darwin, atheists still existed and had their ideas that these people were well aware of.

  • Louis Agassiz (1807-1873; glacial geology)
  • Charles Babbage (1792-1871; computer science)
  • Francis Bacon (1561-1626; scientific method)
  • Robert Boyle (1627-1691; gas dynamics)
  • David Brewster (1781-1868; optical mineralogy)
  • Georges Cuvier (1769-1832; comparative anatomy)
  • Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519; hydraulics)
  • Humphrey Davy (1778-1829; thermokinetics)
  • Henri Fabre (1823-1915; entomology of living insects)
  • Michael Faraday (1791-1867; electromagnetics)
  • John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945; electronics)
  • Joseph Henry (1797-1878; inventor)
  • William Herschel (1738-1822; galactic astronomy)
  • James Joule (1818-1889; reversible thermodynamics)
  • Lord Kelvin (1824-1907; energetics)
  • Johann Kepler (1571-1630; celestial mechanics)
  • Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778; systematic biology)
  • Joseph Lister (1827-1912; antiseptic surgery)
  • Matthew Maury (1806-1873; oceanography)
  • James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879; electrodynamics)
  • Gregor Mendel (1822-1884; genetics)
  • Samuel F. B. Morse (1791-1872; telegraph inventor)
  • Isaac Newton (1642-1727; calculus)
  • Blaise Pascal (1623-1662; hydrostatics)
  • Louis Pasteur (1822-1895; bacteriology)
  • William Ramsay (1852-1916; isotopic chemistry)
  • John Ray (1627-1705; natural history)
  • Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919; dimensional analysis)
  • Bernhard Riemann (1826- 1866; non-Euclidean geometry)
  • James Simpson (1811-1870; gynecology)
  • Nicholas Steno (1631-1686; stratigraphy)
  • George Stokes (1819-1903; fluid mechanics)
  • Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902; pathology)
  • John Woodward (1665-1728; paleontology)


Agassiz, Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Dawson, Virchow, Fabre, and Fleming were strong opponents of evolution.

So once again, you base your statements on the hatred of a religion rather than facts and knowledge. It's funny when an atheist says that religion is the cause of war because few wars are religious. We don't stereotype people saying atheists cause Shootings at school....because the recent shootings including the people at columbine were atheists and members of clubs similar to this. I think one of them even had a shirt on that said survival of the fittest.

Do you see me do that? No. Because I'm better than that. When it comes to me vs. you, I'm the rational one here.

Let me be your for a minute:

Islam believes that Jews are not completely human. In fact, it is taught in their schools that Jews are bread from dogs, and apes. I wonder where the ape idea came from? And just like Hitler's Hit List. Those who are considered partly ape, are the same ones who Hitler wanted to exterminate off the face of the earth. Which by the way, were Jews as well. So here we see the connection of humans not being fully human. The reference to ape makes the connection to evolution. And the desire to exterminate makes the connection to Hitler, Darwin, and Islam. And you put it all together, you come up with the theory of death. Therefore you are no better than a freedom hating nazi whose only goal in life is to exterminate anyone who thinks differently than you regardless of the scientific facts or the social benefits it has.

I am finished talking to you now. Don't bother responding because you have been extremely rude, lacked any science or historical facts, data or references. You really can have a rational response to someone's hatred towards someone who knows more than them.

 

Finished.

 

Nope you will be back.

Scientific developement has throughout history has had non-Christian support as well. Your list is convienantly after the bible. Your statement that the bible is a science book is not supported by listing non contemparary people WAY AFTER the fact and doesnt take into account other cultures contributions during that same time period. AND many of the ideas and thoughts put forth by these people have since been debunked. And these people weither you like it or not were not ripping science out of the bible, they were studying everything all the way back to Aristotle and Empedocles and ancient Egyptians as well.

Name me a contemporary Hebrew scientist mentioned outside the bible at that time that mentions galaxies or stars or black holes? You were the one who claimed the bible is a science book.

 Pasture was a Catholic BTW

And the trend in the science community over the past 90 years has been more scientists leaving myth behind, or at least not mixing religion with science. You build a biology lab in India you can teach cell division to a Hindu. You can replicate the material and lab in Japan and teach it to Shintoists and you can teach biology to an atheist as well.

Muslims also quote their culture as being the author of modern science so therefor Allah exists.

What a person believes on that issue no matter what degree they have still has to be universal and peer reviewed and an objective scientist will give up on debunked ideas or future scientists will debunk it and the community will move on from there.

Religion is incompatable to science, especially because religious people of all labels shout, "My god did it", but the reality is that it can be taught to anyone no matter what they believe.

What you sell is bias junk and quoting those people only means they themselves were smart in some ways but on any givin issue will be dead wrong. But saying "I am a Christian and a biologist, I am smart so therefor my God exists" is bullshit just the same as if a Jewish biologist or Muslim biologist said the same.

Science is not dependant on a label to be learned and was not written by one label. The people of all these labels falsely atributed their smartness to their respective deities giving them their smartness when it was really a combo of genes and upbringing and access to all sorts of information. Some of their information was taken by future people, pondered and built upon, but it wasnt a magical Allah or Jesus or Thor that is the author of cell division.

If science only worked through Christian eyes then a Muslim or Jew disecting a frog in a lab wouldnt be able to do so without a Christian present.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It is all polymerisation,

It is all polymerisation, which is defined as the linking up of smaller molecules into arbitrary long chains.
This occurs sometimes  spontaneously, sometimes under the effects of heat and pressure, other substances acting as catalysts, right up to the complex effects of polymerases which direct the polymerisation in specific directions in cells.
You are equivocating here.
I acknowledge I make have been to quick to make the analogy between amber and synthetic resins. The process in amber is a little more involved, and doesn't actually seem to involve UV. My main point still stands, polymerisation doesn't nedd polymerases.
Actually the process in amber appears to be very slow, requiring often geological time-scales. It certainly requires thorough burial to prevent it being gradually eroded by oxygen. This is why we see it only over a certain time-scale - the process takes a long time, so we see little or none before sufficient time has elapsed to form the fully hardened material, while the really old stuff will have oxidized away, or at least into very small fragments.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
What is an LDS?

What is an LDS?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mormon  => Church of Latter

Mormon  => follower of Church of Latter Day Saints.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: It is all

BobSpence1 wrote:
It is all polymerisation, which is defined as the linking up of smaller molecules into arbitrary long chains.
This occurs sometimes spontaneously, sometimes under the effects of heat and pressure, other substances acting as catalysts, right up to the complex effects of polymerases which direct the polymerisation in specific directions in cells.
You are equivocating here.
I acknowledge I make have been to quick to make the analogy between amber and synthetic resins. The process in amber is a little more involved, and doesn't actually seem to involve UV. My main point still stands, polymerisation doesn't nedd polymerases.
Actually the process in amber appears to be very slow, requiring often geological time-scales. It certainly requires thorough burial to prevent it being gradually eroded by oxygen. This is why we see it only over a certain time-scale - the process takes a long time, so we see little or none before sufficient time has elapsed to form the fully hardened material, while the really old stuff will have oxidized away, or at least into very small fragments.

 

And I agree with you.  I fully know of polymerization in the sense that you were stating it.  That is why I was trying to clarify it.  Polymerization is an ambiguous word used both in biology and chemistry representing different occurances.  Now that it is clarified I think we can agree that we are on the same page.  I will agree that it takes a long time for amber to form from tree sap.  I will also state that the SG of it depends on the amount of pressure applied, you have flaky amber, soft amber and hard amber all from different trees and different levels of burial.  What I was getting at with this is that amber seen globally is in the 30-90 million time frame, the same time as the dinosaurs.  Unfortunately geology has flaws with the 'counting of rings' if you will.  What I mean is the covering happened a lot faster than the geologists claim.  To clarify they will say one level is 10 milion years older than the next with 25 feet of sediment inbetween but with a tree going straight up through it with the same amber throughout giving you that 30 to 90 million range.  It threw me off when I was in Missouri and saw an eroded hill side with a petrified tree going up through what I was taught millions of years of sediment.  Obiviously this does put a damper on the age theory.  Like I said I agree with the idea that it takes time for fossilization but not the rate they list it as.  Did you know for bones to become permineralized....bone to rock....they say it takes millions of years and they base this for dinosaurs yet under the right conditions, permineralization can only take two weeks?

Something to think about.  Take care. 


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Just thought I let you guys

Just thought I let you guys know that.

Science doesn't say anything, scientist do.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote: triften

drdoubleu wrote:
triften wrote:

Now you didn't seem to respond directly to my statement other than to imply that Carbon-14 dating is inaccurate enough to make 4.5k years look like 11k or 43k. Carbon dating can be used to find very young (geologically speaking) ages and can be calibrated based on known ages. It has.

Furthermore, your derision for estimates could just as easily be set upon your estimates of the ages of the living things we've talked about.

I did respond directly. In sum, the estimates made on the ages of these trees as you believe were based on fossils near the trees and not actually the trees themselve. No ring core samples were taken and when they were it was found that they could not be older than 4000 years give or take 100 years based on growth cycles of trees. I based my answer solely on a measurement that we find the most accurate today, counting the rings. It isn't exact but it gives you a very very close rough estimate. You can't count 4000 rings and say that the tree that is still living is 11,000 years old. That means for 7,000 years it went on a hunger strike and forgot to go through its normal growth cycle.

 

I understand that they weren't made directly from the trees themselves. They were estimated based on the growth patterns of the trees. The individual trees aren't over 5k years old, the clonal colony (in the case of the aspens) has been in motion for approximately 80k years. No one made any claims that the trees went on a hunger strike or anything like that.

Evidently extrapolation is too inaccurate for you.

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:

Tree resin turns into amber over millions of years through polymerization. Just because we don't know the exact details of how these things come together doesn't mean that they can't be dated accurately.

Fossils (such as amber) are dated by which strata of rock they are found in. A stratum's age can be determined quite accurately using radiometry (isotopes other than C-14).

Millions of years and polymerization, that is interesting. That means you would find more trees and sap over more periods of time. But you don't. You find it through one sedimentary level. Actually to tell you the truth what they don't tell you is that when they find a lot of these trees they are still standing upright and somehow go through layers of sediment that supposedly took a few million years to lay down. That is impossible. Even so, to take millions of year, amber wouldn't be in the massive chunks we find it in, it would be micro to macroscopic due to weathering and dispersal from breaking apart in rain, trampling etc. radiometry isn't much more accurate. One of my geologist friends pulled a little nasty prank on someone who did radiometry. He took clay and formed it into a rock with layers that made it look like it came from the Grand Canyon, hardened it and sent it out to two different places. One he said he found at the top of the canyon, the other he said he found near the bottom about 50 feet up in the wall. Guess what? they came back stating with their measurements that the rock was as old as the supposed ages of those layers of ground...the one said it was the age at the top of the canyon the other said it was at the bottom. The conclusion....it's still not accurate and based on a person's biased notions of how old certain layers are.

Which sedimentary level? I'd love to see a reference or two. Same for the buried tree claim. It's not as if layers of sediment or rock can shift turning fossils on their sides or moving trees so that they point up.

As far as your friend's prank, garbage in, garbage out is how it goes with most procedures.

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:

If I find a forest where the oldest tree is 200 years old, should I automatically assume that the forest didn't exist 200 years ago? Another possibility is that the trees live on average about 200 years. If the oldest tortise is 175 years old, that doesn't mean that 175 years ago, something wiped out all the tortises.

No, the basis of this would support evidence that the old climax community started its rise 200 years ago and the old canopy is now becoming the new climax community. Not all trees have the same average life span. The measurements I'm basing my statements on are species that can long withstand 5000 years of life. Interesting to know that after I stated why they aren't 11,000 years old you are now backpeddalling and saying that they can only be 200 years old. Which one is it? You had belief in something that I showed wrong so then you try to take what I showed and disproved it on the basis of another tree species? No offense, I just was entertained. The tortoise is irrelevant, we are basing it on older living models. We know trees can live over 5000 years old from other fossils and such, but what we dont' see is those same trees today being older than 4600 years old which draws support to my beliefs.

I was using the 200 year old figure as an example to show that your conclusions that there was a cataclysm x years ago because the oldest thing you can find is x years old is shoddy.

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:

I invite you to read the section referred to by this link, directly addressing coral reef ages.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof26

Given, these estimates of ages are dealing with complex phenomena (sp?), but the age of a reef gives no indication as to the time of a cataclysm.

That's interesting, BUT you didn't see the huge problem here: The guy you are reading that is writing this doesn't have sufficient education to make claims. meaning he's not a doctor or holds anything higher than a bachelors at best from what I see. Plus his scientific facts if you will are based on articles that have been outdated for on average 25 years. If we haven't found new scientific data in a 25 year gap we're screwed in regards to learning. I think the newest article was from 1993....still that's way too old. That's like this one professor I had that told the class that the results on fluorosis (darkening of teeth decay of bones due to fluoride) was lies.....based on a journal from 1947!!!

Well please provide a link to some updated data (and an anecdote about a friend of yours doesn't count.)

drdoubleu wrote:

I'll try to find the quote later on the anchors, it literally is anchors, but they say they are pagan worship rocks or some crap like that....also in regards to the water, you should either read the bible or I can find a site for you. I've run out of time for today.

So in Genesis 7:11 it basically says that the fountains of the deep rose up as well as the windows of the heavens opened. Two primary issues with the fountains of the deep here: 1) large underground resevoirs (sp?) of water would have either collapsed (unless you assume god's hand in this, which we aren't since you are trying to defend flood claims with evidence) or been so deep they were superheated, addding to the heat issue along with the rain; 2) Such an uprising of water would have created very noticable effects on the layers of rock and I'm fairly certain that people with much more experience in geology than I would have noticed them.

I noticed you were distinctly silent regarding my question about the Egyptians, you'll likely assume that is due to shoddy dating techniques. (sarcasm on) I guess all we have to go on is a text passed down over hundreds of years and (mis)translated through a number of languages, originally written by people even more ignorant of the world around them than we are. (sarcasm off)

And BobSpence1 already took care of the comment on "polymerization" (n - a chemical reaction in which two or more molecules combine to form larger molecules that contain repeating structural units). Thanks, Bob.

 

-Triften

-------------------------

If Jesus really did come back, do you think he'd want to see crosses everywhere?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

I'll just tackle these few. First, your quote from the bible was way off. what version were you using? Because it's a little off. For instance your snide remark on Jeremiah 33:22 was off. It literally reads: I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.....Seems to stand. This was only one I pointed out. So I'm not scamming you are just lying and not putting down things right. It's not my fault you're ignorant and instead of trying to pull scientific proof you sit here and attack me as a person and people around me. Do you see me attacking you? No. I'm better than that. Your name calling and swearing only contribute to the facts that you are ignorant, misled and lack the ability to argue with rational response.

Hah, what version were you using? OH MY GOD, NEVER HEARD THAT ONE BEFORE! YOU GOT ME! ..........NOT!

YOUR TRANSLATION:Whatever book that was:

"I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore "

VS KJV Which is what I looked up just for this very reason knowing you'd pull the old "wrong version" crap. So lets put them in juxitposed and see how different they are. And lets see if either matches up with your claim.

KJV "33:22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.

Neither mentions planets or galaxies, so it seems you are still screwed. 

It does seem(at first in your translation) to hint at countless stars, but since they didnt have teliscopes in Hebrew times they wouldnt have known that. Since you cant produce spirit sperm I doubt that your translation amounts to any thing more than your translation using the word "countless" as a literary divise to say, "That is big".

So they(pagans before them) problibly counted what they could visably see knowing that high number would seem GIGANTIC to the laymen, just like 40 days or 40 years would seem like a long time. Numbers are common literary divices in ancient liturature to over exagerate the imporance of something .

Most of the world's population 100 years ago couldnt concieve of 1 million dollars. Some many people today can. But most people today couldn't concieve of 100 billion but 100 billion still isnt infinate.

"Countless" does not mean "unlimited or unending". It litterally means too high to count, but does not exclude a future count with tools that can handle bigger numbers, such as a computer. The Bible has no Pentium chip in it or mention of teliscopes or "google", Just a bunch of fiction.

You are too dense to see that immagry and metaphore are spread from the first page all the way to the last. No formulas, no peer studies, no experment questions, no foundation for replication. Just a tyranical baby as the head character who throws a fit and beats people up and tortures them when they dont kiss his ass.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Regarding the tired old

Regarding the tired old argument about fossils penetrating multiple layers of strata, I think it is well covered in this link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
There also appears to be an assumption that fossilisation must have taken the entire apparent age of the fossil. Of course mineralisation can and normally does occur relatively quickly.
The process would actually have to occur quickly, at least the initial stages, for us to have a well preserved mineral version of the original, otherwise the ordinary processes of decay and erosion by earth movement, water, etc, would have essentially destroyed it.
So the observation that significant mineralistion can occur in a very short period in no way invalidates evidence for evolution, rather it is a requirement for high quality fossils.
Once sufficiently mineralised to be stable, further processes may further change it over time,  of course, to produce what we see today.
Establishing the age of the specimen is a separate exercise based on various techniques such as these 


Carbon dating is just one, as you see, limited to 50000-100000 years at most, so not relevant to most of evolutionary or geological history.
Some of those may not be strictly relevant to evolutionary problems, but they do help calibrate and check those that are.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: drdoubleu

Sapient wrote:
drdoubleu wrote:

then you are an idiot.

Says the guy who I've proven is a liar.

 

 

You have not proven me to be a liar.  I misunderstood the comment what brian37 said to me in regards to christians and science.  I am human and have the ability to error and read something differently than the original intent.  However I felt it was appropriate to note his misconceptions on the bible vs. BECAUSE it is important to note he doesn't know the bible, some of the verses he used were incorrect and that message was read after I sent out the initial.  I haven't responded to any since.  As you know he violated my original agreement to argue as well as you have too, but I will let that go.  He continually does so in a demeanor that is beyond condenscending and is unecessary. 


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote:

triften wrote:

I understand that they weren't made directly from the trees themselves. They were estimated based on the growth patterns of the trees. The individual trees aren't over 5k years old, the clonal colony (in the case of the aspens) has been in motion for approximately 80k years. No one made any claims that the trees went on a hunger strike or anything like that.

Evidently extrapolation is too inaccurate for you.

They weren't even based on the growth patterns of the trees, they were based on fossilized trees found in the area. Dead buried trees and assumed that they were continued growth from those and assumed that the trees themselves were up to 12,000 years old posting it in journals, national geographic etc. But when they took a core sample they realized they could not be older than 4600 years old even though the fossils indicated that they had the ability to be that old and other trees showed to have potential to be that old. You would figure that you have a field of 4500 year old trees that somewhere else they would be older but they all come about the same exact age.

triften wrote:

Which sedimentary level? I'd love to see a reference or two. Same for the buried tree claim. It's not as if layers of sediment or rock can shift turning fossils on their sides or moving trees so that they point up.

As far as your friend's prank, garbage in, garbage out is how it goes with most procedures.

That is a good idea except that the tree is vertical and the sediment is horizontal. I can't find the article at the moment. I think I have it on hard disk but here are some pictures to show what I'm talking about:

(Mod: edit for html error)

 

They were buried aparently completely still rooted to the ground.

 

 

 

triften wrote:

Well please provide a link to some updated data (and an anecdote about a friend of yours doesn't count.)

www.drdino.com I think has a few sources on it.

trfiten wrote:

So in Genesis 7:11 it basically says that the fountains of the deep rose up as well as the windows of the heavens opened. Two primary issues with the fountains of the deep here: 1) large underground resevoirs (sp?) of water would have either collapsed (unless you assume god's hand in this, which we aren't since you are trying to defend flood claims with evidence) or been so deep they were superheated, addding to the heat issue along with the rain; 2) Such an uprising of water would have created very noticable effects on the layers of rock and I'm fairly certain that people with much more experience in geology than I would have noticed them.

yeah, some evidence is the trees I showed you. Alot of geolgists have this evidence but instead of seeing it as a flood they view it as the great meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs even though it doesn't explain why the shells in sediment of where dinosaurs are somehow are also found on the tops of mountains where obviously water wasn't there...or was it Wink.

triften wrote:

I noticed you were distinctly silent regarding my question about the Egyptians, you'll likely assume that is due to shoddy dating techniques. (sarcasm on) I guess all we have to go on is a text passed down over hundreds of years and (mis)translated through a number of languages, originally written by people even more ignorant of the world around them than we are. (sarcasm off)

what was your quote regarding the eqyptians? I don't remember reading anything about it otherwise I would have commented. Please be aware I have flown through a lot of these comments today and have tried to respond to all of them as fast as I can...except for those who I distinctly clarified that I'm not going to acknowledge....nor do I read now. Could you please repeat the question for me?