The half-life of DNA in bone:... [YEC takes a hit, DNA half-life only 521 years]

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/10/05/rspb.2012.1745 ^

[truthfinder9]

[If dinos walked with man, there should be dino DNA, however, there is not.]

Claims of extreme survival of DNA have emphasized the need for reliable models of DNA degradation through time. By analysing mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 158 radiocarbon-dated bones of the extinct New Zealand moa, we confirm empirically a long-hypothesized exponential decay relationship. The average DNA half-life within this geographically constrained fossil assemblage was estimated to be 521 years for a 242 bp mtDNA sequence, corresponding to a per nucleotide fragmentation rate (k) of 5.50 × 10–6 per year. With an effective burial temperature of 13.1°C, the rate is almost 400 times slower than predicted from published kinetic data of in vitro DNA depurination at pH 5. Although best described by an exponential model (R2 = 0.39), considerable sample-to-sample variance in DNA preservation could not be accounted for by geologic age. This variation likely derives from differences in taphonomy and bone diagenesis, which have confounded previous, less spatially constrained attempts to study DNA decay kinetics. Lastly, by calculating DNA fragmentation rates on Illumina HiSeq data, we show that nuclear DNA has degraded at least twice as fast as mtDNA. These results provide a baseline for predicting long-term DNA survival in bone.

[Phinneous]

We believe in an actual, literal 6-day creation and a 5773-year-old world. The article I posted is to refute the ability of science to “prove” anything in an absolute sense.

I don’t know if our theologies match exactly but also in Judaism, man was (and is again :-) ) meant to live forever. In Judaism, after the giving of the Torah, the Jews’ bodies were again perfected and immortal...until the sin of the golden calf mucked that all up....

[chesley]

In Judaism, after the giving of the Torah, the Jews’ bodies were again perfected and immortal...until the sin of the golden calf mucked that all up

OK, you have just got to explain your line of thought here, please, as I cannot find this anywhere in the Bible.

[Phinneous]

Jews believe in a vast tradition of G-dly works, the words of the prophets, the elucidation of scripture by saintly sages of the Talmud (and all the way up to the commentators of the 18th century,) mystical works such as the Zohar, and of course the Oral Law itself (which was given simultaneously at Sinai and explains the exact way in which Jews perform the 613 commandments given by G-d—for example, Numbers 15:38, “...Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel...” This is fulfilled by all Orthodox Jewish men (and not women) until this day...yet without an oral tradition, one would sooner attach an upholstery tassel to the lapel of his jacket than wear this over or under their dress shirts: http://lh4.ggpht.com/_6bpWnB8EmIM/TdJ8suwTV9I/AAAAAAAACBE/yPu8sW3HNlk/tzitzit%5B3%5D.jpg )

So in our traditions and writings we are told that after hearing the first two commandments from G-d Himself, the Jews’ souls departed and they were revived two times. The 3rd through 10th commandments were echoed by Moses, not causing the Jews to expire. After the experience, they were eternal like Adam before the sin. With the sin of the golden calf, the impurity of death returned to them. Bummer. When Moshiach comes, we will all be revived and live eternally.

An article explains: http://m.chabad.org/m/article_cdo/aid/627795

[OHelix]

Thank you for the reply. I read where they gave the specific conditions on which they based their conclusions.

I am still puzzled why the headline characterized it as a hit to YEC theory. If anything, it is potentially devastating to the “millions and millions of years” narrative of evolutionary theory.

Is there something I’m missing or is truthfinder9 taking a logical mulligan?

[driftdiver]

The Bible is my party line, perhaps you have an issue with it?

[chesley]

Thanks for the info

[Springfield Reformer]

Adam was 933 years old when he died; that’s 933 years from the time he was cast out of the Garden, not from the time he was created.

Marking his age from his expulsion and not his creation is an arbitrary assumption with no evidence in the text, unless I have missed something. The danger in positing such "gap" solutions is it makes the ordinary sense of the text so flexible as to be meaningless. One could sidestep the direct and obvious meaning of anything if one could always resort to redefining anchor concepts (like birth, age, death) at will. If the text provides a basis for an alternate meaning, well and good, the meaning is preserved. But without such a justification here, there is simply no reason to believe Moses was referring to anything but 933 years, start to finish, of Adam's physical being, as in the ordinary sense.

Time is not a physical phenomenon

That is open to interpretation. Special relativity implies a spacetime manifold in which time is merely the measure of location in a four dimensional grid, or as some call it, a tesseract. To the extent any of the grid's dimensions are physical, impliedly the entire grid is physical, including time. This is a useful way to see the experimental data on variable aging depending on frame of reference (e.g. time dilation, you leave earth at near light speed and return five years later in earth time but minutes later in your time, and the difference is real in a physical sense).

Bottom line, I've seen arguments for both a physical and a nonphysical view of time, and I remain bewildered. I lean toward the physical view because I do not see how time distortion based on gravitational distortion etc. can be excluded from the realm of physical being. But it is not a closed book to me.

[Springfield Reformer]

I believe Hostage is correct in concluding that Adam was culpable. I would dare say Adam was more culpable than Eve, precisely because he was NOT deceived. He therefore knew the serpent was lying, and it was he who had the last best chance of avoiding rebellion against the command of God, and yet he disobeyed, knowing full well it would result in his condemnation before God.

Jesus confirms that knowing disobedience is a greater sin than misguided disobedience:

Luke 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. [48] But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

And but for Satan’s inducement of Eve, Adam would not have sinned. Therefore Adam, in knowingly joining his wife’s rebellion against God, aligns himself knowingly with the ultimate purpose of Satan, to reject God’s authority over His own creation. This is the great disobedience that threw humanity into sin, and according to Paul it is Adam who killed us all:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Notice he say “by one man,” that is, he looks to Adam as the conduit of sin and it’s curse of death to the rest of us. It is interesting to speculate what might have been if Adam had not followed Eve in her rebellion. Would God have condemned Eve and given Adam another of his ribs transformed? Who knows?

Nevertheless, rebellion it was, because though she was deceived, she also knew full well the command of God (she even misquotes it to Satan) and still chose to use Satan’s lie as a justification for her sin anyway.

But you argue that God would not give Adam a helper that would ever steer him wrong. But if that were true, then God is not at all justified in punishing Adam, which He clearly did, which would imply that God is unjust, which is impossible. God is righteous in all His judgments, and He condemns Adam justly. Adam sinned. He rebelled against God at the inducement of Satan, only not on the basis of a false promise, but knowingly, choosing companionship with his wife in sin over obedience to a clear, simple command of God.

[Springfield Reformer]

Oops! Ping to #48.

[Bobsvainbabblings]

1010RD, when I read your post, I came away with the perception you are saying Adam didn’t sin against God because he was following Eve’s counsel as commanded by God.

Is that what you are saying?

May God the Father lead us all to His truth, BVB

[Zionist Conspirator]

Do you consider the Pope a heretic for believing the same as I do about evolution?

I hear that he's a bit of a "Church Lady" when it comes to certain issues.

[daniel1212]

Aaron had to come up with his own creation story upon meeting Moses, the man of God:

“And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf. “ (Exodus 32:24)

[Phinneous]

I don’t know if your post was to support what I wrote or not. BUT, from our Jewish sources, I assure you the story of Aaron and the golden calf is layered with the most intense depth you could imagine.

A taste: When the sea split, all people, from the biggest scholar to the lowliest servant girl saw “bigger revelations than those of Ezekiel [who saw the throne and an image of a likeness of G-d....go explain that one....(hint, Jews can...)] SO—these people who had just seen G-d, so to speak, saw a throne with an image of an ox on it. (...face of a man, ox, lion, eagle...) So in the absense of their leader Moses (by half a day) they wanted to “create” a leader that wouldn’t be overcome with the wonders of the heavens and STAY there instead of rejoining his congregation. Ergo the ox/calf.... there are other explanations but again, just an example.

[1010RD]

Excellent commentaries and questions. Here’s how I approach the subject of the “Fall”. First, the Garden experience is a singular, non-repeatable event. Second, it is the least understood aspect of scripture and if you don’t get it then subsequent scripture, including Christ’s mission are not going to make sense.

Let’s begin at the beginning and read the Bible as written and not as interpreted. The events of Genesis 1 are almost complete and here is the description of the Sixth “Day”:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion... 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it... 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

http://kingjbible.com/genesis/1-26.htm

Note the command to be fruitful and multiply.

Then comes Genesis 2 and man is created physically:

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

http://kingjbible.com/genesis/2-7.htm

Note that the man is now a “living soul”. The LORD God plants a garden toward the east in a place called Eden. So it is actually the Garden in Eden in which Adam is placed. Not Adam alone because the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil are also planted there.

Eden is a very, very unique place on earth.

15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

http://kingjbible.com/genesis/2-15.htm

Now Adam is in Eden, but it isn’t an idle existence he is to “dress it and keep it”. So Adam is cultivating and watching and essentially working already.

Next comes the second specific commandment to Adam:

...the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

So here God’s placed a very dangerous item in the Garden, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, in the Garden. It is so dangerous that it brings about mortality.

Next is this critical verse: http://bible.cc/genesis/2-18.htm

I like Young’s Literal Translation here:

And Jehovah God saith, ‘Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper — as his counterpart.’

The word “helper” here is literally that, someone who helps, who makes things better by assisting.

Note also that this too, is a commandment. It is bad for a man to be alone or without a woman.

Adam recognizes this: http://kingjbible.com/genesis/2-21.htm

Note that he emphatically states:

23 and the man saith, ‘This is the proper step! bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh!’ for this it is called Woman, for from a man hath this been taken;

24 therefore doth a man leave his father and his mother, and hath cleaved unto his wife, and they have become one flesh. 25 And they are both of them naked, the man and his wife, and they are not ashamed of themselves. (YLT)

This is the set up for the events of Genesis 3. We have the following commands to Adam:

1. be fruitful and multiply.

2. Do not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - it leads to mortality.

3. It is bad for man to be alone.

4. A man is to cleave to his wife and they are to be one flesh. (Adam gains this knowledge/commandment of God)

So Adam has 4 commandments to deal with and 3 of those 4 involve his relationship to his wife, Eve.

Note also that they are not ashamed of their nakedness and so exist in a state of innocence and are without sin. They have the ability to choose, though.

That’s the set up to Genesis 3. That’s why Adam didn’t “sin” against God.

A. He couldn’t as he acted in innocence, but not stupidity.
B. Eve was the one who was tricked.
C. He picked the commandments most in volume and consistency with God’s purpose - the next step.

Eden wasn’t lost and the “Fall” isn’t really a reduction to a lower state. It is a necessary step leading up to the Salvation of all mankind. Our goal isn’t to return to Eden, but to get to Heaven where God lives.

[allmendream]

You see? May as well ask the YEC’s how much evidence it would take to make them a heretic an atheist or think that God is dead, impotent or aloof. No amount of scientific evidence will convince them that the Earth and Universe are old or that God would use non miraculous means to create.

[BrandtMichaels]

So have you heard of Dr. Walt Brown PhD and his hydroplate theory?

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

[Springfield Reformer]

I have been an atheist. You might also ask what it would take for an atheist to give up the notion that proof of the supernatural must conform to the standards of an incomplete epistemology that is premised on the impossibility of the supernatural.

The choice to believe is rational, if and only if one decides to permit the possibility that “real” is or at least could be a super-set of “physical.” However, the limitless possibilities that opens up can be overwhelming. The universe is a much safer, smaller place, much easier to control, if there is no brooding spirit hiding behind the curtain waiting to spoil our fondest beliefs and plans.

No doubt this is why Dawkins’ is “concerned” for the sanity of supernaturalists (“the God Delusion”). He has infallibly ascertained the entire universe is empty of any rational being that did not spontaneously spring forth from primordial chaos. I have no doubt his psychological defenses against belief in God, angels and demons are at least as secure and impregnable as the Christian’s certainty those things are real. Every kind of evidence that might be offered would be processed as equivocal, as somehow possible in an entirely materialistic context. Whether that is true or not doesn’t matter. Winning the argument is all that matters, remaining confident we are not accountable to some ultimate standard of righteousness, other than what we ourselves determine and enforce on our own.

Which is why atheism is the new theocracy, why it has always been a central feature of collectivist regimes for going on two centuries now. After the “Enlightenment,” man is god. Nietzschean will to power is all there is. This is why the Democrat party is leaning ever more atheistic, and pragmatically is already there, as for example the judicial opinion on Hobby Lobby demonstrates, or the rampant fraud this election. The state is god. The state determines morality. The state determines truth. There can be no competition from older organized religions. They were just tools to oppress the proletariat anyway. Slavery to the “enlightened” class is freedom. Slavery to sin is freedom from superstition. Loss of the individual to the will of the collective is a right. The Jabberwocky makes more sense.

But if we begin from a different premise, that God is at least possible, that miracle as a category is not to be automatically excluded when considering evidence, then an entirely different, and more challenging, reality is possible, and in context to the premise, just as and perhaps more rational than it’s purely materialistic counterpart. And in the context of that reality, no state can ever fully subjugate a people who believe in God, because in that context, there is always a supernatural way to understand the evidence, and there is therefore always a way to trump human authority with divine authority. This can lead to great and painful conflicts, and thus does not rest well with those human authorities, be they political, scientific, or ecclesiastical. So be it. It is better than the alternative.

Peace,

SR

[El Cid]

R: 56

I know the question was not addressed to me, but I first heard of Walter Brown around one year ago, when I got a book titled 'Christian Men of Science' by George and Julia Mulfinger. I heard or Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, JC Maxwell, Robert Morse, Lord Kelvin, etc ... But when it got to Walter Brown, I drew a blank. I checked out his website (which you referenced) and I'm slowly going through his book on his hydroplane theory. I have no expertise in this area, but from a basic model and explanation of observable effects - it provides some good explanations.

[allmendream]

Supernatural explanations lead nowhere and to nothing. They are of no use.

Physical explanations lead to further knowledge of the physical world and awe at the grandeur of the laws of the universe.

[Springfield Reformer]

I rest my case. As I thought, you wouldn’t consider anything outside your a priori antisupernatural framework. Too cramped for me. Pleasant dreams ....