The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[SavedByTheLord]

Really? Nowhere does it say that in the book of Judges. In fact, it says the Lord was with Judah and he took possession of the hill country, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron.

Specifically, the reason they could not win in this case was because the chariots were of iron *even though* the Lord was with them.


According to the story? After hardening Pharaoh's heart (so he thereby lost free will), he drowned the army in the sea after the former slaves went across.

In reality, nothing like that ever happened.

So, you must have never read the Bible.
Without faith it is impossible to please Him.

God said the unsaved cannot understand the word of God or the gospel of Christ.
And they do not understand science also.

God took Egypt apart. Did you miss that?
God destroyed many when God led them into the promised land.
Did you miss that?
God created everything in 6 days and caused a worldwide flood.
Surely you remember that.

They could not fight again Ai at first because Achan took the accursed thing.

Do you anything at all?

 

[Eddi]

And they do not understand science also.

How do you define science?

Please explain your understanding

 

[SavedByTheLord]

How do you define science?

Please explain your understanding

Science is knowledge.

 

[Eddi]

Science is knowledge.

And how does science work?

 

[Polymath257]

So, you must have never read the Bible.

Yes, I have. Did you read Judges 1?

Where does it say there was a lack of faith and that was the reason for the defeat?

The actual text says that the reason they were not able to clear out those in the plains was because they had iron chariots. Did *you* read the Bible?

Without faith it is impossible to please Him.

Irrelevant to Judges 1

God said the unsaved cannot understand the word of God or the gospel of Christ.

How convenient.

And they do not understand science also.

Funny that my physics professors said otherwise.

God took Egypt apart. Did you miss that?

I certainly read that *story*. The question is whether it actually happened. The evidence is that it didn't.

God destroyed many when God led them into the promised land.
Did you miss that?

I read the story. The question is whether it actually happened. The evidence says not.

God created everything in 6 days and caused a worldwide flood.
Surely you remember that.

Again, I read the story. The evidence says this is not what happened in reality.

They could not fight again Ai at first because Achan took the accursed thing.

Do you anything at all?

Huh? I just retired as a research mathematician.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Yes, I have. Did you read Judges 1?

Where does it say there was a lack of faith and that was the reason for the defeat?

The actual text says that the reason they were not able to clear out those in the plains was because they had iron chariots. Did *you* read the Bible?

Irrelevant to Judges 1

How convenient.

Funny that my physics professors said otherwise.

I certainly read that *story*. The question is whether it actually happened. The evidence is that it didn't.

I read the story. The question is whether it actually happened. The evidence says not.

Again, I read the story. The evidence says this is not what happened in reality.

Huh? I just retired as a research mathematician.

So calculate the odds against a first living creature with a specific DNA code 100,000 base pairs all right handed and a total specific sequences of all left handed 200,000 amino acids.

Obviously you cannot understand the word of God or the gospel of Christ .

 

[Eddi]

So calculate the odds against a first living creature with a specific DNA code 100,000 base pairs all right handed and a total specific sequences of all left handed 200,000 amino acids.

Obviously you cannot understand the word of God or the gospel of Christ .

Where in the gospels does it mention DNA and amino acids???????

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Where in the gospels does it mention DNA and amino acids???????

It does not have to.
God is Almighty and can do anything.
Time is not.

 

[Eddi]

It does not have to.
God is Almighty and can do anything.
Time is not.

That's a bit of a crappy way of thinking

If everyone had always thought that way then we'd still be in the middle ages

But then you'd like that, wouldn't you????

 

[gnostic]

So calculate the odds against a first living creature with a specific DNA code 100,000 base pairs all right handed and a total specific sequences of all left handed 200,000 amino acids.

Obviously you cannot understand the word of God or the gospel of Christ .

Where in the gospels does it mention DNA and amino acids???????

It does not have to.
God is Almighty and can do anything.
Time is not.

more of the same irrationality:

the old “God did it” superstitions, circular reasoning, confirmation bias, argument from ignorance, false equivalence…

…and just plain old creationist nuttiness.

 

[Polymath257]

So calculate the odds against a first living creature with a specific DNA code 100,000 base pairs all right handed and a total specific sequences of all left handed 200,000 amino acids.

Obviously you cannot understand the word of God or the gospel of Christ .

Changing the subject? Look at Judges 1 and let me know when there was a lack of faith that lead to the defeat against the iron chariots. Help me understand what that text says if you think I have it wrong.

 

[Eddi]

and just plain old creationist nuttiness.

I find that it is simultaneously funny, depressing, frustrating, and worrying

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Changing the subject? Look at Judges 1 and let me know when there was a lack of faith that lead to the defeat against the iron chariots. Help me understand what that text says if you think I have it wrong.

That is why I said you do not understand scripture or the gospel of Christ.
It is a precept that God will not use His miraculous power if there is no faith.

Read Isa 28:9-13 and maybe you will see what it actually says.
Note the phrases "precept must be upon precept" and "here a little there a little" .
Why do you think it has to be in Judges 1?

 

[gnostic]

The flood happened about 4500 years age.
The flood buried many animals and many of them turned into fossils.
There is no mention of something fossilized before the flood.
There is mention of things that were buried and fossilized by the flood.
There is mention of conditions that existed pre-flood.

Not every remains of organisms that get “buried”, turn into fossils. Fossilisation are rare occurrence, they don’t happen all the time.


But, here is what you don’t know, and what you clearly don’t understand, SavedByTheLord.

There are no such things as 6000 years old fossils (Genesis creation of life, eg Adam) or less than 4500 years old fossils (eg post-Flood).

Before actual fossilation can occur or can complete their processes, the deposits of mud or soil that buried the remains, will have to turn the minerals into rocks, first.

The mud or soil contained large amount of minerals, largely silicon-based, such as

• silica, like quartz, that are usually found in sandy soil type or silt soil type;
• silicates, like
  • feldspar, minerals that are found in silt or clay soil types
  • mica, usually found in clay soil

These are 3 main types of soil, and each type have many other subtypes.

Anyway, it is the minerals, known as sediment, that over time, will turn these sediments into rocks, and that would require certain requirements, specifically level of heat but more importantly pressures that would compact minerals more tightly together, to bond themselves and hardened into rocks. The compaction will also reduce the size of pores in the soils, which will push out much of the liquid (eg groundwater) and gases.

As I said, much of the process of turning deposits of minerals into deposits of rocks, depends on pressures, eg pressure from gravity, pressures from all around, especially from above, because new layers of deposits would additional downward pressure against the layer that the remains are buried.

All of the above processes - the heat, the pressures, plus additional layers of deposits of sediments - all take time for sediments to turn into sedimentary rocks, so fossilisation will also take, certainly more than 10,000 years.

Just because you bury a human body, it doesn’t means it will turn into fossils. The silicon-based minerals in the soil will have to touch the bones and teeth, and the minerals would have to also reach inside the cavities of the bones, where the marrow used to be; those minerals would need to permeate the skeletal remains, first.

But as I said the soil or mud that buried the remains, must turn into rocks, before the remains themselves can begin fossilisation processes, and that can only happen if the minerals have cemented themselves and solidified them through heat and pressure.
Without enough pressure mud won’t turn into rock. But too much pressures will destroy the bones before even fossilisations can start.

The types of sedimentary rocks that soils or mud can turn into, are mud rock, eg mudstone, sandstone, siltstone, clay stone, shale, etc. Depending on the conditions, they won’t turn any remains into fossils in matter of 6000 years or less.

A couple of authors in the article you linked, claimed to be geologists, eg John Baumgardner (geophysicist), Andrew A Snelling (geologist).

They should know what I have written to you, especially how long it take for deposits of sediments (eg minerals) to turn into sedimentary rocks…and they can’t happen in less than 10,000 years, which means fossils cannot happen in less than 10,000 years.

Either they are dumb geologists, or worse, they are lying by using fake data in their article. I am thinking these 2 two, are both. Instead of being more intelligent as people get older with experience, both Snelling and Baumgardener have become stupidier since they have joined the Institute for Creation Research, as they not only don’t know that there are no such thing as less than 6000-year-old fossils, they have doctored the data (in the article) in regarding to radiometric dating, as well as falsifying about the dating techniques.

As to radiocarbon dating.

You wouldn't use radiocarbon dating, especially on rocks older than 60,000 years, especially when there are more reliable radioactive isotopes to date rocks and rock minerals, such as lead (Pb-205), potassium (K-40, which have half-life of 1.2 billion years), uranium (U-238 or U-235), thorium (Th-232, 14 billion years), etc, which have longer half-life than C14.

One of the ways to verify is to more than one type of radioactive isotope, or to use it with another dating technique, such as one of the luminescence dating techniques, especially on the last 1 million years of human history.

optical-stimulated luminescence dating (OSL) and thermoluminescence dating (TL) can date any specific mineral grains (eg potassium feldspar, quartz) that have been exposed to ionising radiation (eg ultraviolet light from the sun) in some length of time, before those minerals have been buried.

potassium feldspar can be found in clay, so archaeologists can date any ceramic or pottery from Neolithic time to as recent as 10 years ago, as long as the objects have been exposed to sunlight (more specifically ultraviolet), before they are buried. The ionising radiation (again, ultraviolet that exists sunlight), caused the “breeching” to the mineral grains (eg quartz, potassium feldspar) that will reset the OSL clock.

Luminescence dating techniques, exposing the minerals either infrared or heat, the device can measure the numbers of radiation doses that exist in the minerals.

using this technique along with test results from radiometric dating, should verify each other estimated dates.

now, while pottery, to be use as ware to store food or drink, have been around for 7000 years, humans have been using clay to create other objects, eg figurines, for 21,000 years. Hardening clay objects using fire, have be done as early 19,000 years.

Sub objects exposed your claims that the human life have only been around 6000 years (eg creation of Adam and Eve). Jericho, Damascus, Eridu, Uruk and Nineveh are all other than 6000 years.

 

[YoursTrue]

In reality or in your favorite books?

The point is, and keep in mind I don't agree with everything a person may say about God, even if they profess to be a believer. The same goes for science. Except that practical science is different than theoretical science. it really isn't between you and the other person. Now we most likely agree that Stephen Hawking is dead. I haven't asked around on these boards, but it is quite likely that some people may believe he's mentally still alive somewhere. So here's my point -- it doesn't matter what another person thinks unless he can prove it. And you know that theoretical science cannot be proved. As we see from some posters here, they are convinced they can talk with the dead. Others are convinced they cannot talk with the dead.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not every remains of organisms that get “buried”, turn into fossils. Fossilisation are rare occurrence, they don’t happen all the time.


But, here is what you don’t know, and what you clearly don’t understand, SavedByTheLord.

There are no such things as 6000 years old fossils (Genesis creation of life, eg Adam) or less than 4500 years old fossils (eg post-Flood).

Before actual fossilation can occur or can complete their processes, the deposits of mud or soil that buried the remains, will have to turn the minerals into rocks, first.

The mud or soil contained large amount of minerals, largely silicon-based, such as

• silica, like quartz, that are usually found in sandy soil type or silt soil type;
• silicates, like
  • feldspar, minerals that are found in silt or clay soil types
  • mica, usually found in clay soil

These are 3 main types of soil, and each type have many other subtypes.

Anyway, it is the minerals, known as sediment, that over time, will turn these sediments into rocks, and that would require certain requirements, specifically level of heat but more importantly pressures that would compact minerals more tightly together, to bond themselves and hardened into rocks. The compaction will also reduce the size of pores in the soils, which will push out much of the liquid (eg groundwater) and gases.

As I said, much of the process of turning deposits of minerals into deposits of rocks, depends on pressures, eg pressure from gravity, pressures from all around, especially from above, because new layers of deposits would additional downward pressure against the layer that the remains are buried.

All of the above processes - the heat, the pressures, plus additional layers of deposits of sediments - all take time for sediments to turn into sedimentary rocks, so fossilisation will also take, certainly more than 10,000 years.

Just because you bury a human body, it doesn’t means it will turn into fossils. The silicon-based minerals in the soil will have to touch the bones and teeth, and the minerals would have to also reach inside the cavities of the bones, where the marrow used to be; those minerals would need to permeate the skeletal remains, first.

But as I said the soil or mud that buried the remains, must turn into rocks, before the remains themselves can begin fossilisation processes, and that can only happen if the minerals have cemented themselves and solidified them through heat and pressure.
Without enough pressure mud won’t turn into rock. But too much pressures will destroy the bones before even fossilisations can start.

The types of sedimentary rocks that soils or mud can turn into, are mud rock, eg mudstone, sandstone, siltstone, clay stone, shale, etc. Depending on the conditions, they won’t turn any remains into fossils in matter of 6000 years or less.

A couple of authors in the article you linked, claimed to be geologists, eg John Baumgardner (geophysicist), Andrew A Snelling (geologist).

They should know what I have written to you, especially how long it take for deposits of sediments (eg minerals) to turn into sedimentary rocks…and they can’t happen in less than 10,000 years, which means fossils cannot happen in less than 10,000 years.

Either they are dumb geologists, or worse, they are lying by using fake data in their article. I am thinking these 2 two, are both. Instead of being more intelligent as people get older with experience, both Snelling and Baumgardener have become stupidier since they have joined the Institute for Creation Research, as they not only don’t know that there are no such thing as less than 6000-year-old fossils, they have doctored the data (in the article) in regarding to radiometric dating, as well as falsifying about the dating techniques.

As to radiocarbon dating.

You wouldn't use radiocarbon dating, especially on rocks older than 60,000 years, especially when there are more reliable radioactive isotopes to date rocks and rock minerals, such as lead (Pb-205), potassium (K-40, which have half-life of 1.2 billion years), uranium (U-238 or U-235), thorium (Th-232, 14 billion years), etc, which have longer half-life than C14.

One of the ways to verify is to more than one type of radioactive isotope, or to use it with another dating technique, such as one of the luminescence dating techniques, especially on the last 1 million years of human history.

optical-stimulated luminescence dating (OSL) and thermoluminescence dating (TL) can date any specific mineral grains (eg potassium feldspar, quartz) that have been exposed to ionising radiation (eg ultraviolet light from the sun) in some length of time, before those minerals have been buried.

potassium feldspar can be found in clay, so archaeologists can date any ceramic or pottery from Neolithic time to as recent as 10 years ago, as long as the objects have been exposed to sunlight (more specifically ultraviolet), before they are buried. The ionising radiation (again, ultraviolet that exists sunlight), caused the “breeching” to the mineral grains (eg quartz, potassium feldspar) that will reset the OSL clock.

Luminescence dating techniques, exposing the minerals either infrared or heat, the device can measure the numbers of radiation doses that exist in the minerals.

using this technique along with test results from radiometric dating, should verify each other estimated dates.

now, while pottery, to be use as ware to store food or drink, have been around for 7000 years, humans have been using clay to create other objects, eg figurines, for 21,000 years. Hardening clay objects using fire, have be done as early 19,000 years.

Sub objects exposed your claims that the human life have only been around 6000 years (eg creation of Adam and Eve). Jericho, Damascus, Eridu, Uruk and Nineveh are all other than 6000 years.

I am not a "new earther," maybe that's the right term, but I have doubts about the theory of evolution as taught by theoretical scientists.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How long is the video and when did it begin?

34 minutes and begins at 0.00. It is not religious but shows numerous flaws in the existing BB theory as a result of new data coming from the James Web Telescope.

 

[Polymath257]

That is why I said you do not understand scripture or the gospel of Christ.
It is a precept that God will not use His miraculous power if there is no faith.

Read Isa 28:9-13 and maybe you will see what it actually says.
Note the phrases "precept must be upon precept" and "here a little there a little" .
Why do you think it has to be in Judges 1?

Because that is where the situation is described. It is the clear reading of the text. Why go to a completely different text?

 

[gnostic]

I am not a "new earther," maybe that's the right term, but I have doubts about the theory of evolution as taught by theoretical scientists.

You mean you are not YEC creationist...my post was a reply to @SavedByTheLord who is one, and he definitely believe that the Earth and life to be no older than 6000 years.

And the theory of Evolution isn't "theoretical" model.

Evolution is about adaptation & changes (eg speciation), not about the origin of first life, which is the ABIOGENESIS "hypothesis".

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, which means it is “science”, because it has been tested and verified by the numbers of evidence in the last 160 years.

Abiogenesis isn’t science, because it is still a hypothesis…however it is a working falsifiable hypothesis.

The word “falsifiable” is often misunderstood by science illiterates, and by creationists.

Falsifiable simply means the models are TESTABLE, and because Abiogenesis is a “working hypothesis”, it means there have already been tested, eg evidence and experiments have supported different models of hypothesis, but it still required more testing.

There are more than one model in the hypothesis of Abiogenesis, meaning different teams of scientists have different proposed models. Some think that life started in the deep oceans, like from those hydrothermal vents, while think it started on land from some bodies of water, like lakes, rivers or even ponds. There are already evidence to support both scenarios.

The 3rd model proposed that life might have started in space. While scientists haven’t evidence of life, they do have evidence of organic matters existing in some of the larger meteorites.

Organic matters as in biological (carbon-based) compounds or molecules. Organic matters or biological molecules and compounds, are by themselves are not living organisms, but they are vital components for cell structure, and cellular functions: without them, cells cannot exist.

There are 3 fundamental biological macromolecules that exist in all cells:

1. proteins, which are made of chains of amino acids.
2. nucleic acids, which you may be more familiar with RNA & DNA.
3. carbohydrates, which like proteins, there are many types that have many functions.

The 4th macromolecule that are essential to cells, is the lipids (which also have a number of different functions).

RNA and DNA are macromolecules that contain genetic information that are passed on from parent organisms to child organisms, as well as directing proteins as to what functions they have. But DNA & RNA are not a single molecule; each nucleotide of nucleic acid, have 6 different molecules.

And as I said, proteins are just as essential as nucleic acids for life, particularly with multicellular organisms (animals), because much of the tissues are made of proteins

The points is that a number of these chemical compounds have been found in larger meteorites, eg Murchison Meteorite, Allende Meteorite. So there are evidence to support that organic matters (organic matters, not living organisms) can exist in space.

 

[YoursTrue]

You mean you are not YEC creationist...my post was a reply to @SavedByTheLord who is one, and he definitely believe that the Earth and life to be no older than 6000 years.

And the theory of Evolution isn't "theoretical" model.

Evolution is about adaptation & changes (eg speciation), not about the origin of first life, which is the ABIOGENESIS "hypothesis".

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, which means it is “science”, because it has been tested and verified by the numbers of evidence in the last 160 years.

Abiogenesis isn’t science, because it is still a hypothesis…however it is a working falsifiable hypothesis.

The word “falsifiable” is often misunderstood by science illiterates, and by creationists.

Falsifiable simply means the models are TESTABLE, and because Abiogenesis is a “working hypothesis”, it means there have already been tested, eg evidence and experiments have supported different models of hypothesis, but it still required more testing.

There are more than one model in the hypothesis of Abiogenesis, meaning different teams of scientists have different proposed models. Some think that life started in the deep oceans, like from those hydrothermal vents, while think it started on land from some bodies of water, like lakes, rivers or even ponds. There are already evidence to support both scenarios.

The 3rd model proposed that life might have started in space. While scientists haven’t evidence of life, they do have evidence of organic matters existing in some of the larger meteorites.

Organic matters as in biological (carbon-based) compounds or molecules. Organic matters or biological molecules and compounds, are by themselves are not living organisms, but they are vital components for cell structure, and cellular functions: without them, cells cannot exist.

There are 3 fundamental biological macromolecules that exist in all cells:

1. proteins, which are made of chains of amino acids.
2. nucleic acids, which you may be more familiar with RNA & DNA.
3. carbohydrates, which like proteins, there are many types that have many functions.

The 4th macromolecule that are essential to cells, is the lipids (which also have a number of different functions).

RNA and DNA are macromolecules that contain genetic information that are passed on from parent organisms to child organisms, as well as directing proteins as to what functions they have. But DNA & RNA are not a single molecule; each nucleotide of nucleic acid, have 6 different molecules.

And as I said, proteins are just as essential as nucleic acids for life, particularly with multicellular organisms (animals), because much of the tissues are made of proteins

The points is that a number of these chemical compounds have been found in larger meteorites, eg Murchison Meteorite, Allende Meteorite.

I appreciate your erudite response, and I have been doing some research to understand more about evolution. But, of course, I'm far from an expert on these topics. However I do have questions. May I ask what your background is in the subject of biologic evolution? I may not be using the right term, so I hope you understand because I do have some questions. Thank you.