ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
Still rolling this one out, bob? Doesn't it embarass you? Do you have no shame? You started a whole thread on this notion of yours and it was conclusively shown that you're play-kit science didn't match the observed facts. And what did you do? You pretended it hadn't happened.
If you're really a Goth, where were you when we sacked Rome?
That is all fine and dandy, to debate issues of evidence; however, it lacks any true meaning because if you need evidence to believe, you lack faith.
I could care less about evidence, who ever turned evidence about Biblical matter on, its time to turn it off. One believes as one comes to know, not though some scientific human toy
BTW, nobody came up with any valid scientific reasons why the expansion scenario I posted wwould be invalid.
If it is really invalid I wouldn't want to keep repeating it, so try again you skeptics.
This time try to be more scientific in your objections.
Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Last edited by bob b; December 6th, 2007 at 05:37 PM.
Reason: Dup
I happened to run across this tidbit while searching for something through my thousands of files on evolution.
-------
NASA Investigates 'Radiation Aging' Danger Faced By Astronauts From Cosmic Rays
Thing is, telomere shortening occurs without cosmic ray damage, too. The telomeres shorten with each instance of replication.
You say you're going to provide evidence supporting Genesis, but so far you haven't done so. There is a theory that aging is the result of an accumulation of somatic mutations, but even your own sources indicate that it's not a well-supported theory.
You've mentioned that the magnetic of the earth is currently decreasing (although evidence shows that this is not the case in the long term), and suggested that as a result more cosmic rays are penetrating, but you haven't supported that assertion, either. Direct measurements over the past 50 years show that the level of cosmic ray penetration has remained roughly stable, or has declined slightly. Here's a graph I made from data available from the Climax Station neutron monitor (dashed line is the long-term linear trendline):
You also haven't given any evidence indicating that humans could live lifespans in the range of multiple centuries without the effects of cosmic rays.
So, you've given a conjectural theory (somatic mutations cause aging), and one fact (the earth's magnetic field is currently decreasing), but you have not given any evidence in support of your conclusion (humans could conceivably have lived the sorts of lifespans described in Genesis).
Many people assume that the universe must be very old because we can see the light from stars that are billions of light years away. Is this positive proof that the universe is very old? It is if you assume that the light from such faraway stars has been travelling for billions of years.
That doesn't make sense. It's not an "assumption" that the light of the stars has been traveling that long; the distance of the star from the earth at the time the light was emitted is calculated based on parallax, and the "age" of the light is calculated based on that distance and the known speed at which light travels.
Wait a minute, I thought you were going to present "evidence" in this thread? There is none in the above post, just your attempt to distort the data to fit your model.
Thing is, telomere shortening occurs without cosmic ray damage, too. The telomeres shorten with each instance of replication.
You say you're going to provide evidence supporting Genesis, but so far you haven't done so. There is a theory that aging is the result of an accumulation of somatic mutations, but even your own sources indicate that it's not a well-supported theory.
You've mentioned that the magnetic of the earth is currently decreasing (although evidence shows that this is not the case in the long term), and suggested that as a result more cosmic rays are penetrating, but you haven't supported that assertion, either. Direct measurements over the past 50 years show that the level of cosmic ray penetration has remained roughly stable, or has declined slightly. Here's a graph I made from data available from the Climax Station neutron monitor (dashed line is the long-term linear trendline):
You also haven't given any evidence indicating that humans could live lifespans in the range of multiple centuries without the effects of cosmic rays.
So, you've given a conjectural theory (somatic mutations cause aging), and one fact (the earth's magnetic field is currently decreasing), but you have not given any evidence in support of your conclusion (humans could conceivably have lived the sorts of lifespans described in Genesis).
Perhaps I should have been more specific, like the NASA report was, and specified the type of cosmic rays I was talking about that are implicated in the aging scenario. Reread the NASA report I posted and you will see what I mean.
Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
That doesn't make sense. It's not an "assumption" that the light of the stars has been traveling that long; the distance of the star from the earth at the time the light was emitted is calculated based on parallax, and the "age" of the light is calculated based on that distance and the known speed at which light travels.
Parallax works only for nearby stars. In addition, expansion, being only in the co-ordinates of space, can proceed far faster than the speed of light, as evidenced in Guth's inflationary expansion hypothesis. I believe Wikipedia also mentions this somewhere.
Try calculating Guth's rate of expansion, which was 1026 times in 10-32seconds.
If I am not mistaken this is millions of times faster than the speed of light.
Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
(1) S Yang, H Odah, J Shaw (2000), Variations in the geomagnetic dipole moment over the last 12 000 years, Geophysical Journal International 140 (1), 158–162.
I would be interested in the assumptions which this article used to determine that they were working with material 12,000 years old.
The data which established that the Earth's magnetic field was decaying over the past 150 years (by 10%) was taken with instruments around the world and not inferred from samples of remnant magnetism. Because of that I feel more confident in the direct measurements than those that are merely inferred based on a number of assumptions that may or may not be true.
Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Perhaps I should have been more specific, like the NASA report was, and specified the type of cosmic rays I was talking about that are implicated in the aging scenario. Reread the NASA report I posted and you will see what I mean.
You mean iron nuclei? The neutron count is a proxy for measuring cosmic ray particles such as atomic nuclei as they enter the atmosphere.
BTW, nobody came up with any valid scientific reasons why the expansion scenario I posted wwould be invalid.
If it is really invalid I wouldn't want to keep repeating it, so try again you skeptics.
This time try to be more scientific in your objections.
The most obvious objection would the cosmic microwave background. It wouldn't exist in your scenario. The near uniformity is consistent with a much older universe and the smal scale variations are consistent with a 10^-33 second inflationary period. Data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe suggest your scenario is highly unlikely.
Slogan/motto:
To believe with certainty, we must begin by doubting. --Polish Proverb
Reputation:
December 6th, 2007, 06:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RekLaw
Or you can just read it where GOD says that humans will live no more than 120 years.
According to one scientist, around the supposed time that God said this, a quasar started having a wild party out in space, and that means more radiation to go around for everyone. So that's one reason why life spans could be significantly shortened.
The most obvious objection would the cosmic microwave background. It wouldn't exist in your scenario. The near uniformity is consistent with a much older universe and the smal scale variations are consistent with a 10^-33 second inflationary period. Data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe suggest your scenario is highly unlikely.
I already assumed the inflationary period you indicated.
The CMB temperature depends only on the amount of expansion that has occurred, not the rate which got us there. So CMB temperature would be the same in either scenario.
Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Unless the equipment specifically counts the particles thought to be responsible for aging, the equipment measurements would not detect any significant changes in the aging particles over the past 50 years if it also includes other types of cosmic rays in its counts (said to be 90% or more of the total).
BTW, thanks for the links. I've saved them for future reference.
Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
I already assumed the inflationary period you indicated.
The CMB temperature depends only on the amount of expansion that has occurred, not the rate which got us there. So CMB temperature would be the same in either scenario.
Your scenario of sudden expansion of the universe to its current size would not result in a thermal equilibrium state. The CMB spectrum would not resemble blackbody radiation.
Linear Mode
