Genetic testing...achondroplasia

[vogue]

Law, I realize now that I can actually work with you man! We may never resolve these issues on this forum but at least we can work together right? So let’s go to work:

 

That's carbon 14. You can use a multitude of other elements, such as Samarium-147 (half-life of 146 billion years). It does not require severe assumptions, this is a common misconception since the rate of decay of the elements being used is known within +/- 1%

 

Law, isn’t it, in and of itself, a huge assumption to suggest that the half-life of any element is 146 billion years? I mean honestly, who the heck has been around that long to actually validate that claim? Thousands of multi PhD scientists who are already biased towards evolution? Not even! And then to within +/- 1%? Give me a break. To add insult to injury, scientists are forced to assume that the rate of decay REMAINS CONSTANT over billions of years! As an other example, the presence of I-129 (half-life ~16 million years) in the earth’s crust is assumed to be produced by fission because the rock in which it is found is itself assumed to be over 300 million years old. Can these assumptions be made? Sure. But that hardly gives scientists the right to label the ‘findings’ as ‘evidence’ or ‘proof’.

 

Honestly, if so many scientists so vigorously defend radiometric dating (note - radiometric, not carbon dating ... there are many elements you can use as I just mentioned) - don't you feel a little weird saying to all of them that they are wrong.

 

No. They weren’t there. Just because 100,000 PhDs in neatly pressed lab coats have cooked up some cow dung numbers which they have eloquently placed on a platter called ‘+/- 1%’ doesn’t mean that I will immediately dig in my fork, knife, and spoon and proceed to swallow.

 

Homo neanderthalensis may have been human, but the mitochondrial studies are inconclusive.

 

Yes you are right…no evidence for either side I guess…..

 

This is just one of several different humanoid forms found. There are some well preserved fossils of other humanoids, not all of them are highly eroded.

 

Dude, where are all the fossils??? Where are all the thousands and thousands of fossils over millions of years to chronicle the evolution of man? The fossil record is not nearly sufficient to suggest that man evolved. Do you know that even for well preserved fossils, reconstruction of what the individual looked like requires assumptions, beliefs as to what they SHOULD have looked like? Whether this be done by a sketch artist or computer program? Who wrote the computer program? And another thing, why did ALL the humanoids die out? Why did only homo sapiens survive? What exactly made these highly evolved humanoid forms less capable of survival on earth than apes, orangutans, and chimps? Than ants, moths, flies and hornets? Earthworms? Why didn’t even one humanoid species survive to be with us today? You can theorize and assume all you like. That’s fine. Now prove it.

 

Evolution is nothing more than a belief system. Evolution requires FAITH. If the argument against teaching ID in schools is that it’s not scientific, and requires faith, then the education system has no business bombarding me with the nonsensical gibberish of evolution disguised as fact in some ridiculous textbook every time I step into any kind of bio related lecture. Evolution arose due to atheism, because, without evolution, the atheist is left speechless, without a tongue and true vocal cords. For whatever reason in their mind, they have decided that God does not or can not exist and evolution is their only way out. Evolution is an atheistic religion masked as factual science.

 

I find that you are looking for excuses to deny the overwhelming case supporting the claim that you may not interpret the bible literally.

 

What ‘overwhelming’ case? If you call critically questioning the science of our day ‘looking for excuses’ that’s ok. But you are doing the exact same thing in order to discredit the literal Genesis account.

[The Law]

Law, isn’t it, in and of itself, a huge assumption to suggest that the half-life of any element is 146 billion years? I mean honestly, who the heck has been around that long to actually validate that claim? Thousands of multi PhD scientists who are already biased towards evolution? Not even! And then to within +/- 1%? Give me a break. To add insult to injury, scientists are forced to assume that the rate of decay REMAINS CONSTANT over billions of years! As an other example, the presence of I-129 (half-life ~16 million years) in the earth’s crust is assumed to be produced by fission because the rock in which it is found is itself assumed to be over 300 million years old. Can these assumptions be made? Sure. But that hardly gives scientists the right to label the ‘findings’ as ‘evidence’ or ‘proof’.

 

As with any science, you are never 100% certain. You can just observe all the patterns and decide for yourself. How likely is it, do you think that the rate of decay fluctuated by large amounts over time?

 

Okay - even let's say that radiometric dating is wrong. Another thing, we know that there are stars millions of light years away that's light reaches the earth. This in and of itself indicates that the universe is not 6000 years old. Or is the rate at which light moves something that fluctuates over time as well? You cannot seriously believe the universe is 6000 years old. I'm not asking you to simply believe the "men and women in white lab coats," but to examine the evidence and make realistic claims. Obviously, it's up to you whether or not you would like to face the evidence - but the fact that their are galaxies millions of light years away that's light has reached here shows that the universe is not 6000 years old - and that the bible cannot be interpreted literally.

 

Dude, where are all the fossils??? Where are all the thousands and thousands of fossils over millions of years to chronicle the evolution of man? The fossil record is not nearly sufficient to suggest that man evolved. Do you know that even for well preserved fossils, reconstruction of what the individual looked like requires assumptions, beliefs as to what they SHOULD have looked like? Whether this be done by a sketch artist or computer program? Who wrote the computer program? And another thing, why did ALL the humanoids die out? Why did only homo sapiens survive? What exactly made these highly evolved humanoid forms less capable of survival on earth than apes, orangutans, and chimps? Than ants, moths, flies and hornets? Earthworms? Why didn’t even one humanoid species survive to be with us today? You can theorize and assume all you like. That’s fine. Now prove it.

 

You still cannot deny the extreme similarity between the species morphology of many of the species, or the fact that they have existed. The thing that made them not survive, is that they perhaps did not evolve as well as homo sapiens sapiens did. Some theories hold that perhaps homo sapiens sapiens may have even been involved in a massacre with the competing species.

 

Evolution is nothing more than a belief system. Evolution requires FAITH. If the argument against teaching ID in schools is that it’s not scientific, and requires faith, then the education system has no business bombarding me with the nonsensical gibberish of evolution disguised as fact in some ridiculous textbook every time I step into any kind of bio related lecture. Evolution arose due to atheism, because, without evolution, the atheist is left speechless, without a tongue and true vocal cords. For whatever reason in their mind, they have decided that God does not or can not exist and evolution is their only way out. Evolution is an atheistic religion masked as factual science.

 

It is not an atheistic believe system. It's only atheistic to those who choose to interpret the Bible literally. There are parts in the Bible in the old testament that talk about killing other immoral humans - is that meant to be interpreted literally?

 

Now, I'm not an astrophysicist, an astronomer, or a gelogist - but I guess if you're bold enough to have the expertise to claim that all of them are all "atheists who are out to disprove the existence of God" (which is absolutely wrong.) and that they're all wrong regarding the speed of light, the size of the universe, and dating techniques - then feel free to think that interpreting the Bible literally is the correct way of approaching the book.

[paulos]

The reason I reject evolution is because the entire mission of Christ depends on the ‘literal’ Genesis account.

 

How so?

 

Remember, when we make reference to Bible tools, especially translations, those authors had a theological context which biased their interpretation. It can lead to circular reasoning.

 

My only question to you, as a scientist is, can you deny that adaptation occurs in a Petri dish? If you deny an organism a certain nutrient, then check the descendants, you will surely find mutants who have altered their protein expression profiles in order to survive their new environment. It is not to say God has no hand in these processes, it's just that these processes have been so carefully studied and presented, it is kind of stiffnecked to oppose them.

 

Before I started Biology, I was strongly anti-evolution in view, having been in the evangelical church for years. Even after a year in Bio, and up to third-fourth year, I was opposed to evolution. But after doing a couple of years in seminary, I found that the church is also not opposed to it (RC). And believe me, these are some of the most intelligent people you will ever meet... try reading some Aquinas or any modern Catholic theologians- it'll blow your mind.

 

So, my challenge for you is, find out what the Catholic church says about evolution, don't limit yourself to evangelicalism... it's not something which they have convincing enough information about, for me anyways.

 

Peace of Christ to you.

[The Law]

The reason I reject evolution is because the entire mission of Christ depends on the ‘literal’ Genesis account.

 

That is not true, in my opinion. How the heck does the entire mission of Christ depend on the literal Genesis account? If you think about it metaphorically, then it perfectly fits with Christ - humans can be weak, they screw up... make mistakes and must try to live their lives in a way to better themselves. It's such a powerful story, not for its literal meaning - but the themes behind the occurences it speaks about.

 

Remember who wrote the Gospels. The followers of the Apostles of Christ, years and years and years after Christ. The accounts found in the Bible are based on the teachings of the Apostles to their disciples based on what they learned from Christ. The reason I am against your whole idea that scientists are all atheists out to disprove the existence of God is that it is wrong. Many of the most intelligent scientists believe in God and use science to prove God's existence (like Paulos said - check out Aquinas who used science to try to prove the existence of God). Many, many others also did the same.

[AMmd]

I feel the need to add something to this discussion.

I don’t think the bible is meant to be taken quite literally. That said, we can not just pick and chose what we will agree with.

 

Also it would be foolish to take everything literally, because, we have to put ourselves in the context of when the bible was written. the best example i have of this is the book of revelations. you cannot read this and take it all literally. The book is very figurative, and we should just stick to the meaning behind the message and not worry about the details. (kinda like studying for the mcat lol) ... anyways, take for example the number of ppl that will be saved (i.e.:144 000 ppl) .. if you take this number as the real number of ppl that will be saved it is just impossible for any of us to be saved

also several cults have taken the bible too literally and this should be avoided IMHO because it is not what God wants of us.... He wants us to know HIM personally and not the irrelevance of the number of ppl that will be saved... or anything else that is not "important" for us to achieve a relationship with the Lord. (all I’m saying is that perusing details will derail us from our ultimate goal of knowing God)...

 

edit: oh i have to add... there are some things that need to be taken literally. the bible is not ALL figurative and therfore some things are meant to be taken the way the were written... God gave us the ability to think critically for a reason..

[The Law]

the best example i have of this is the book of revelations.

 

Some people do choose to read this litearlly, and usually they fail to look at the historical context that it was written in. The Catholic church looks at this book through a historical context and also as a prophecy.

[vogue]

As with any science, you are never 100% certain. You can just observe all the patterns and decide for yourself. How likely is it, do you think that the rate of decay fluctuated by large amounts over time?

 

I don't know how likely it is. But that’s just my point. Neither does anyone else

 

Another thing, we know that there are stars millions of light years away that's light reaches the earth. This in and of itself indicates that the universe is not 6000 years old.

 

Do you realize the number of assumptions you have just made?...

 

Obviously, it's up to you whether or not you would like to face the evidence

 

Why do you keep saying that? I am facing the evidence! And it doesn’t conflict with the Genesis account.

 

 

and that the bible cannot be interpreted literally.

 

Yes it can.

 

 

You still cannot deny the extreme similarity between the species morphology of many of the species, or the fact that they have existed.

 

I don't deny the similar morphologies. The evolutionist assumption here is that common structure = common ancestor. Can't common structure = common Creator? Plus reconstruction = assumption of features. Therefore, Evolution = Faith.

 

The thing that made them not survive, is that they perhaps did not evolve as well as homo sapiens did. Some theories hold that perhaps homo sapiens sapiens may have even been involved in a massacre with the competing species.

 

Prove it. If you can’t, its’ faith.

 

It is not an atheistic belief system. It's only atheistic to those who choose to interpret the Bible literally.

 

It’s atheistic in origins. I know that there are many Christian scientists who support it but they do so only because they believe the evidence supports it and refute literal Genesis.

 

 

There are parts in the Bible in the old testament that talk about killing other immoral humans - is that meant to be interpreted literally?

 

Literally, plainly, in a straight forward manner – yes. But when reading scripture the complete context of the passage and its relationship with all scripture in general must be considered. This means that scripture must be studied. This takes time. The Klu Klux Klan or a murderous group of Neo-Nazis can easily take out a few verses of scripture and use it to justify their atrocities. It’s sad but true. Jesus and Paul warned us not to misconstrue scripture and twist it around. I believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. The Bible validates my belief. This is all faith. But the only point I will try to make to you is that evolution is all faith as well.

 

Now, I'm not an astrophysicist, an astronomer, or a gelogist - but I guess if you're bold enough to have the expertise to claim that all of them are all "atheists who are out to disprove the existence of God" (which is absolutely wrong.) and that they're all wrong regarding the speed of light, the size of the universe, and dating techniques - then feel free to think that interpreting the Bible literally is the correct way of approaching the book.

 

As I said, I am aware that some Christians believe in evolution. It’s my opinion that this is an erroneous belief contradicted by the Bible. If the Bible is infallibly true, which I believe it is, then it means that God is right because He was there and all other claims to the contrary are wrong because the scientists were not there. Please understand what I am trying to say here. God is supernatural. For Him, miracles come a dime a dozen. I can definitely recognize a metaphor, or a poem. But I can also recognize a miracle. In plain language, the Genesis account of creation is a miracle. A literal miracle performed by God. God created science. He doesn’t have to abide by its rules. This is simply my faith

[vogue]

How so?

Law, you aslo asked me this...

 

Evolution says death, suffering and survival of the fittest have always been a part of God’s creation. Genesis tells us that death and suffering entered the world through Adam’s sin. Right after the Fall, God promised a Savior (the Seed of a woman) Jesus Christ, who would crush the head of the serpent (Satan) [Gen 3]. Both assertions can not be true.

 

Remember, when we make reference to Bible tools, especially translations, those authors had a theological context which biased their interpretation. It can lead to circular reasoning.

 

Context is highly important in interpreting the Bible. I've always used context when understanding scripture. However, if the Bible is fully inspired by God as it claims them we don’t have to worry about the bias of the writers. I understand that this requires faith. No more than that for evolution.

 

My only question to you, as a scientist is, can you deny that adaptation occurs in a Petri dish?

 

No, I can’t and I never have. The evolutionist assumption here is: adaptation, therefore, evolution. That’s faith. My faith is that God gave us the ability to adapt in order to maintain homeostasis, fight disease, cope with stress etc etc. because He knew we could not survive without it.

 

But after doing a couple of years in seminary, I found that the church is also not opposed to it (RC).

 

Well for me, it’s not a matter of whether the church is opposed to it. It’s a matter of whether the Bible is opposed to it. The church is people. People admittedly screw up. The Bible claims to be the infallible Word of God and not of biased men and I believe it. Therefore, I trust the Bible over biased scientists.

 

And believe me, these are some of the most intelligent people you will ever meet...

 

I don’t doubt that. But they can still screw up.

 

So, my challenge for you is, find out what the Catholic church says about evolution, don't limit yourself to evangelicalism.

 

It’s not about the denomination for me. It’s about the Bible. It doesn’t matter to me which denomination you call yourself.

 

Peace of Christ to you, too!!

[The Law]

Literally, plainly, in a straight forward manner – yes.

 

But if you're going further than that, you aren't interpreting the Bible literally.

The fact that you cannot read it simply for what it is, indicates it's not mean to be read literally.

 

Do you realize the number of assumptions you have just made?...

 

So am I to take it that you do not believe there are stars hundreds to billions of light years away, who's light has travelled this far? Because if the Bible could be read literally, then no star more than 6000 years (not even light years - just YEARS) away should not be seen from earth.

[vogue]

Law stop replying so quickly! I hate typing!

 

The fact that you cannot read it simply for what it is, indicates it's not mean to be read literally.

 

Lol man is this all semantics now?? I do read it simply for what it is. I accept it plainly. When I say 'literally' I don't mean that a can't recognize a metaphor, but that I can recognize a miracle.

[vogue]

Because if the Bible could be read literally, then no star more than 6000 years (not even light years - just YEARS) away should not be seen from earth.

 

That's not true. Light years represent distance, not time

[The Law]

That's not true. Light years represent distance, not time

 

Yes, time that it takes for light to travel in a year. If a star is 50 million light years away and observable from the earth, then that means it takes light 50 million years to reach the Earth. So if that light is reaching the Earth, then it has been travelling for 50 million years to get here.

[The Law]

Law stop replying so quickly! I hate typing!

 

 

 

Lol man is this all semantics now?? I do read it simply for what it is. I accept it plainly. When I say 'literally' I don't mean that a can't recognize a metaphor, but that I can recognize a miracle.

 

alright, fair enough - is it time to agree to disagree?

 

ps. you should drop by and join our crazy "what's everyone doing..." party thread

[vogue]

Yes, time that it takes for light to travel in a year. If a star is 50 million light years away and observable from the earth, then that means it takes light 50 million years to reach the Earth. So if that light is reaching the Earth, then it has been travelling for 50 million years to get here.

 

but didn't Eistein show that time is not constant?

[vogue]

alright, fair enough - is it time to agree to disagree?

 

ps. you should drop by and join our crazy "what's everyone doing..." party thread

 

ok:p but for now I'm out for the nite!

[The Law]

but didn't Eistein show that time is not constant?

 

He showed that it had a beginning.

My point was that if light has travelled 50 million years to get here, then the universe must be older than 50 million years.

[avenir001]

He showed that it had a beginning.

My point was that if light has travelled 50 million years to get here, then the universe must be older than 50 million years.

 

but if time isn't constant, then maybe 50 million yrs is actually like 500 yrs or sth anddddd when i was a kid, i used to listen to these old ladies talk about how God's time is different from ours...so maybeee according to the clock in the Kingdom of God, it's been only 6000 yrs since the universe was created...omg!! i'm convinced by my own argument, i'm sooooo intelligent, i just solved a big piece of the puzzle

[AMmd]

but if time isn't constant, then maybe 50 million yrs is actually like 500 yrs or sth anddddd when i was a kid, i used to listen to these old ladies talk about how God's time is different from ours...so maybeee according to the clock in the Kingdom of God, it's been only 6000 yrs since the universe was created...omg!! i'm convinced by my own argument, i'm sooooo intelligent, i just solved a big piece of the puzzle

 

avenir your are so smart...

but its true.. god's time is not our time... time is a human invention ...

[The Law]

avenir your are so smart...

but its true.. god's time is not our time... time is a human invention ...

 

Not necessarily, Einstein's relativity shows time as a physical paramater. The way we measure time may be a human invention though.

 

And avenir - time, I believe is a constant parameter (not 100% sure though). Also, much of the constants that we see have experimental evidence that supports the notion that they've remained constant over time (don't really know this experimental evidence though, just things I've read).

 

By the way, according to Einstein's relativity - the universe was created about 14 billion years ago. He says that Time exists along with Space as a constant dimension.

 

Anyway, how likely do you think it is that time is not constant and that the constant rate of decay is not constant?

[paulos]

Being a deist, Einstein was still able, perhaps more able to understand the universe... personally I believe the framework undergirding relativistic theory is entirely consistent with walking on water, raising the dead and multiplying loaves and fishes.

The flesh, the material realm, counts for nothing, it is spirit, energy, which gives life. Interchanging these two is possible not only in biblical so-called mythology, but in tried-and-true atomic reactors.

[vip_138]

guh! i can't handle this thread. or all these other evangelical threads popping up. a thank you to the moderators for trying to control this issue.

 

k, i was gonna make some massive post about all your posts and articles vogue but i just don't have the energy nor the drive. Just a couple of comments. Anitmatter is NOT matter. Matter CAN be created along side antimatter just like their anhilation. This however needs a antimatter-matter potential in some form of energy so i suppose this doesn't fully explain causal existance and i'm sorry for even bringing it up now along with a lot of my statements that i guess i didn't expound on.

 

another thing, evolution does NOT require a causal existence (my post was just random thinkings of my mind on antimatter stuff). Evolution is just a model that says that creatures seem to evolve from one organism to the next, getting more complicated (sometimes). Even the big-bang doesn't exclude the belief in god, since what came before that? (NOTE: the big bang and evolution are completely independent of each other). Its interesting to note that the big-bang theory was created by a roman catholic priest.

 

For the whole 'earth is 6000 years old' there has been several radiometric dating that all point to the same rough number 4.some billion. This including things like light travel that law posted also point to the universe being older thatn 6000 years. I'm not even going to debate relativistic theory with anyone becuase i know you will have little knowledge in this area, as seen with some of your posts about special relativity. the point of special relativity is that time is dependent on the observer but is always constant in your eyes. Now i suggest you read a couple books on QM or special relativity before making outlandish statements.

 

I also think its quite a rash statement to say that scientists are bias. If anything scientists are the least biased. They look at the evidence and come up with models accordingly. Sir isaac newton considered himself more religious than physics oriented. He has also written more about religion than about physics btw. I'ld say if anything, religous ppl have a bias, a bias in believing the bibel no matter what. Scientists happen accross evidence, they form conclusions that they think are rational (often multiple models, that through time usually get proved right or wrong) while religious ppl just keep trying to poke holes in all these theories and coming up with things for why the bible is plausable. I'ld say scientists are more open than religious ppl. Scientists don't go out to prove religion or the bible wrong, they just use common sense and reasoning to come up with models. If it goes against the bible then it does, they don't care about actually proving the bible wrong (and neither do i).

 

anyways, i only came into this debate because you said that evolution is not a science. i severely disagree with that statement, as i said in my original post and have outlined EXACTLY how it IS a science. You can poke holes as much as you want, and i could poke holes in you're arguments too about how some little part in evolution is wrong but that technically doesn't matter. No theory, even the law of gravity, is 100% fact, and there can always be holes in them, that's why its science. That's why it keeps progressing.

 

You however make an interesting point that evolution is a belief system and i technically don't disagree with you. ALL of science is a belief system. I believe in gravity. I believe in models that have been constructed based on evidence that has been obtained and have been held up to the scientific method. I distinguish this belief system from the faith in god (also a belief system) in that it uses the scientific method to apply its concepts, instead of just the faith in god. Now technically, you could consider the bible a scientific theory (if taken literally), since it is a model that states how we've gotten here, it states things that have happened, and things that will happen, thus upholds the 1st point of predicting occurances. The 2nd point is that it is falsifiable, and it is. Becuase of its statements, there can be evidence found that can disprove it. The thing is, this evidence has been found, and thus is technically a theory that's been proven wrong. If you don't want to agree with the all the evidence fine. I'm sure you can find holes in all of it if you try hard enough. The way i look at it is that science is a probability. Gravity is probably 99.99999 etc. % probable to work exactly as we have characterized it. Evolution is a probability too. Now if you to believe in something else, that's fine, as their is a certain probability that evolution is wrong. I'm not here to state evolution is fact, nor say that the bible is wrong or faith in god is wrong. All i'm saying is that evolution is a science.

 

For any of the above about QM or speical relativity or anitmatter just look it up on wikipedia or other sources but please be INFORMED before making statements.

[paulos]

for anyone who thinks all preachers are evangelical, they're not.

anyway, if we didn't preach, how would people learn about God?

Is there ANYTHING more important?

(anticipating kneejerk reactions... don't do what the imp on your shoulder says, just this once, you have the power in Jesus)

[vip_138]

for anyone who thinks all preachers are evangelical, they're not.

 

noone directly made that statement. i suppose i assumed the couple of threads were, becuase i just skimmed. Now stop trolling, making these statements that go no where.

[paulos]

God bless you, although you hate preaching, know that there would be no euro-american civilization without the gospel, the church, and hence preaching, that includes med school.