Posted on 01/03/2014 10:54:01 AM PST by fwdude
Genesis 1:28 “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it…”
How long have people been living on the Earth? The evolutionist says two million years. The Bible-believing Christian says about six thousand. Who is right?
Statistically, a couple must have 2.1 children to keep a population at the same level. In practice, this means a minimum of three children per family. Let us suppose for a moment that the biblical account of the Genesis Flood in which just eight people survived is true. Let us further suppose that each family from this population point in history had 2.4 children on average. This very modest number will take into account all the deaths through infant mortality, plagues and war. How long would it take to reach today’s world population? Surprisingly, the answer is just less than five thousand years. This figure fits nicely into known historical records.
Now suppose we take the evolutionary view that mankind has been on this planet for two million years and we begin with two people – or eight, it will make little difference – and they also had the statistical 2.4 children per family. We will finish up with a number so impossibly large that the universe itself would not hold them! Aware of this problem, the textbooks explain it away by speaking of “population stability throughout this time.” This is nothing short of an appeal to a miracle! Frankly, the biblical account is far more believable.
Prayer: Jesus, it was through You that all things, including us, were made. When we withdrew our love from God and cut ourselves off from Him through sin, You came to our rescue. How can I ever thank You enough? Amen.
Notes: Cleone H. Weigand. “Morality Remains the Best Way to Stem Population Growth.” Milwaukee Journal, April 14, 1985.
Thanks. I couldn’t find them more than likely as I was using the wrong search terms based on your initial post on the subject.
Having read through the links provided on your two posts, they do not prove that tests have confirmed “the cloned embryo inherited the biological clock of the donor DNA”, probably explaining the reason why it is ‘little publicized’.
There’s some telomere shortening in some, but not all clones. There’s even indications that telomere’s in some species actually lengthen with age, the opposite of what would be required to support the hypothesis you initially claimed was proven.
I’m not prepared for an in depth discussion nor comfortable making claims about on the subject, as it is not my line of work, nor have I studied it at any great length, so I have no special knowledge.
From what I have been able to find on my own, and with the links you’ve provided (some 20 years before Dolly was put together in a lab), there is no established link to support the statement:
“the cloned embryo inherited the biological clock of the donor DNA, which means any tissue or organs generated by the cloning process will not extend the life of the host since they are of the same age.”
These processes are not understood well enough to make any such conclusion, though some have speculated that may be the case. The mistake here is drawing conclusions based on unproven inferences on subjects we don’t fully comprehend or understand.
If the cause of the premature aging cannot be found, for example tying it to the length of the telomeres, then a statistical study can be performed to see if Dolly’s early demise was in the tail of the distribution, or very close to the expected value.
The reason is is “little publicized” is because it was an unexpected negative outcome that the cloning community is not real happy about. As a person of Faith I find it kind of funny that human science tried to pirate God’s code only to find out that their ultimate quest, immortality, will not be fulfilled.
My other assertion, which you did not react to, is totally unproven, but worthy of note. As the human genome becomes more and more known, I predict that the actual number of generations of man will be discovered in the genetic code. It will be similar to a software revision, a trivial piece of the DNA that keeps track of every time a haploid is formed, or when two come together. Then we will be able to evaluate how accurate the number of generations as described in the Sacred Scriptures are versus the modern explanations which assume that man has been on this Earth for hundreds of millions of years, which was what started this whole thread.
“If the cause of the premature aging cannot be found, for example tying it to the length of the telomeres, then a statistical study can be performed to see if Dolly’s early demise was in the tail of the distribution, or very close to the expected value.”
Premature aging has not been established as an inevitable result of the process of cloning.
“The reason is is “little publicized” is because it was an unexpected negative outcome that the cloning community is not real happy about.”
Absolute nonsense.
“As a person of Faith I find it kind of funny that human science tried to pirate God’s code only to find out that their ultimate quest, immortality, will not be fulfilled.”
Multiple false premises render your statement meaningless.
“My other assertion, which you did not react to, is totally unproven, but worthy of note.”
Perhaps. Certainly whether or not something has been ‘proven’ has been no barrier for you in this interaction.
“As the human genome becomes more and more known, I predict that the actual number of generations of man will be discovered in the genetic code.”
I wouldn’t rule it out.
“It will be similar to a software revision, a trivial piece of the DNA that keeps track of every time a haploid is formed, or when two come together.”
Not an analogy or testable hypothesis I’d be comfortable proposing, but in a very general sense I guess it could be considered kind of like that.
“Then we will be able to evaluate how accurate the number of generations as described in the Sacred Scriptures are versus the modern explanations which assume that man has been on this Earth for hundreds of millions of years, which was what started this whole thread.”
So many things wrong with this sentence.
We already have enough evidence that shows the generations described in the bible are not accurate as an explanation for our history as a species.
These timelines are not ‘assumptions’, they are based on evidence, in multiple fields, all converging into one coherent explanation that is both testable and falsifiable. Each additional discovery is added to this knowledge compiling a more complete picture, none of which at this time supports explanations in any sacred text.
There is also no evidence that humans have been on “Earth for hundreds of millions of years” and the length of time they have been is not ‘assumed’.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is, which in itself is not objectionable. What is objectionable is mis-representing scientific research to further a non-scientific belief.
Nice work. Seriously, people posting defense of this nonsense is absolutely one of the most embarrassing things about FR - it’s great that people like you demonstrate that FReepers aren’t idiots.
Just a little something to add o your FR ‘embarassment’...
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
That is embarrassing. Thanks?
What passes for science these days is filled with agendas and lack of attention to the assumptions and validity of the first principles, which are by definition known by intuition. I have no problem with the scientific method.
If the mortality is a disturbing subject for you, maybe that is the reason for the ridicule?
When is the locomotive most free, when it is on the rails, or when it is off?
“What passes for science these days is filled with agendas and lack of attention to the assumptions and validity of the first principles, which are by definition known by intuition.”
Scientific principles aren’t based on ‘intuition’, by any definition.
“I have no problem with the scientific method.”
Your posts on the subject prove otherwise.
“If the mortality is a disturbing subject for you, maybe that is the reason for the ridicule?”
Was a strange presumption. The ‘ridicule’ is about your stunning combination of ignorance and arrogance on a subject on which you know little.
“When is the locomotive most free, when it is on the rails, or when it is off?”
I have no idea what this cryptic nonsense means, nor do I care.
A pew is not a good place to learn science
You’re wrong [bert] on both counts. I never learned any science in a pew, but I’d have been miles ahead if I had.
I learned about both of those prior links from fellow like-minded freepers. And I stand by them b/c the truth has a certain ring to it.
Incidentally the majority of the top 100 scientists had some background in a christian church - even Darwin [no PhD nor any scientific credentials btw] was training for the clergy.
“I never learned any science in a pew,”
or anywhere else for that matter.
“but I’d have been miles ahead if I had.”
Of what or whom?
“And I stand by them b/c the truth has a certain ring to it.”
Science isn’t predicated on whether or not something rings true or sounds plausible or feels right.
“Incidentally the majority of the top 100 scientists had some background in a christian church - even Darwin [no PhD nor any scientific credentials btw] was training for the clergy.”
Not incidental, irrelevant.
as a side note, I just finished (and highly recommend) a short book Paul Johnson did on Darwin, and it’s amazing how much genius made up the man’s lineage. Was news to me.
Oh really? Well Darwin also said [paraphrased]:
If we do not find thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils my theory completely falls apart.
Anyone can write a book that makes any idiot sound like a genius if they are selective in what they quote.
Maybe you could read some of the opposing arguments [like those supplied prior] before you pronounce judgement. Or read ‘10 Icons of Evolution’ if you think evolution is settled science.
All historical science completely fails the scientific method mainly b/c you can not re-create thousands or more years [the repeatability step].
Or maybe reading is too taxing for you. Here’s another great link from a fellow freeper from yesterday’s web discussion entitled:
Evolution is Most Certainly a Matter of Belief... and so is Christianity
Presuppositional Apologetics. The facts are that without the God of the Bible, we couldn’t:
-Know Anything
-Say Anything is Right or Wrong
-Couldn’t Trust Our 5 Senses
-Couldn’t Engage in Scientific Experimentation
-Couldn’t Engage in Logical Discourse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j9-cyRbFcs
Dr. Jason Lisle talks about the ULTIMATE PROOF for God’s Existence, Creation and Creationism
8 posted on Wednesday, January 15, 2014 12:29:29 PM by Zeneta
The first principles of every science are known by intuition, if you don’t understand this, you haven’t ever thought about it correctly. Remember, a first principle is prior to everything in the science.
Faith and Reason.
One can’t presume that we all know intuitively that there is a god and discredit everything that doesn’t explain, mention or fit a subsequent narrative attributed to a god on this presumption.
One also shouldn’t presume that intuition or the ability to know is itself created by this same god especially in light of actual evidence that contradict our understanding of its will, desires and narratives about our existence and physical world.
Some of the things you’ve said on this thread that seem to show this bias.
“As a person of Faith I find it kind of funny that human science tried to pirate God’s code only to find out that their ultimate quest, immortality, will not be fulfilled.”
“My suspicion is that as the study of the human genome advances, we will find that the number of generations of man is encoded in the DNA. That is, we will be able to tell how many generations have occurred since the first parents, you know the ones without belly buttons, Adam and Eve.”
“In the mean time we can play with the math, which currently seems to favor the notion that Jesus Christ, the New Adam, was born 5199 years after the creation of Adam and Eve, and not 200 million years after the first primate suddenly acquired the gift of reason.”
“Then we will be able to evaluate how accurate the number of generations as described in the Sacred Scriptures are versus the modern explanations which assume that man has been on this Earth for hundreds of millions of years, which was what started this whole thread.”
The beginning of ANY science requires intuition. Some philosophers call this the “light of the natural reason”. Otherwise why even speak of truth or the ability to know about external reality? Why even have an argument about any subject? That is, if your first principles are only axioms, arrived at by convention or vote, then why even discuss what constitutes scientific knowledge or truth?
The divine science, aka sacred theology, has as its beginning first principles that are known by a divine intuition that is infused, not known by the light of the natural reason. This science is not expected in this discussion because it is a gift and not arrived at by intellectual activity.
Riding on the rails of Faith and Reason, the mind is most free. What you call arrogance and ignorance is actually intellectual liberty.
“The beginning of ANY science requires intuition.”
It doesn’t end there though.
“Some philosophers call this the “light of the natural reason”. Otherwise why even speak of truth or the ability to know about external reality?”
This follows my point more closely than yours actually. Should one reject scientific results like the age of the earth because it doesn’t agree with a theological teaching, why even study anything? Just rely on intuition which is the divine truth?
Robert Gentry gave the geological dating community a polonium sandwich.
Probably rats. Rabbits are delicious. But if we have that food shortage rats will do in a pinch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.