The Religion Discussion

[bluefete]

Devil>God

Simple

NEVER HAPPEN. THE CREATED COULD NEVER BE GREATER THAN ITS CREATOR!!

Prove otherwise.

[d spike]

I see

Well, I see what you mean about learning something from him... you got his ability to 'respond without responding' down pat, complete with emoticons...

Now, seriously, what else did you think St. Augustine meant? I would love to hear what concepts formed in your mind while reading those words that didn't involve a developing creature that happened to be alive.

[bluefete]

Anyway, the time I was really referring to is the measurement of billions of years.

LOL @ backpedal

Scientists use this term to approximate the age of things/periods. It is said we can tell the age of a tree by its rings. Have we ever found a tree that was 1 billion years? But we find bones of dead animals and say they are million/billions of years old.

i hope you are not THAT ignorant.

Firstly our earth has gone through many changes in the past billion years and not everything that was here a billion years ago is here now.
Trees do have lifespans and may not live to be 1 billion years old.
Bones are far more resilient and can become fossilized better than soft leaves and wooden trunks.

Please do some reading on carbon dating.

How long ago do you think the dinosaurs were here?

I did NOT backpedal. My fault for not stating it clearly at first.

How accurate is carbon dating? it is still not an assured methodology for post-dating.

Why do we assume that everything must happen over eons of time? A global, cataclysmic flood may have had the power to rapidly transform the landscape in a very short time period.

Dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time!!!!! Have you never watched The Flintstones? ( I am serious here.)

By the way, this is the same Flintstones which had many references to the "Lodge" and ... (oh, never mind)

[bluefete]

I see

Well, I see what you mean about learning something from him... you got his ability to 'respond without responding' down pat, complete with emoticons...

Now, seriously, what else did you think St. Augustine meant? I would love to hear what concepts formed in your mind while reading those words that didn't involve a developing creature that happened to be alive.

Can a creature develop without a soul/spirit?

[bluefete]

do aliens on the planet Xigmathurzy read the Bible?
how did they get it?
how is the translation done?

King James Version: Acts Chapter 2

1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

That should answer your questions.

[d spike]

How long ago do you think the dinosaurs were here?

Dinosaurs???
I thought Bluefete wanted to talk about what people said before they died... what kind of focus is this??? (Oh yeah, I forgot... this is a religious thread, and religions tend to be based on what certain people said before they died, anyway... besides, Bluefete's concept of focusing on a concept is to not do so... his is the scattershot approach to hitting a target - if you pack enough slugs into a cartridge, you must hit something of importance when you let fly - so if he brings up enough diverse topics instead of holding a discussion, then he is sooner or later going to answer someone's questions.)

As far as dinosaurs are concerned, they lived in relative peace for millennia - apart from losing quite a few family members and friends to carnivores and tar-pits in grisly fashion - until they discovered religion. Religious wars, mass drownings due to total immersion baptisms, leaps of faith off precipices, and holy pilgrimages to tar-pits is what brought about the demise of most of these creatures. The rest became extinct due to leaving the nest too often to frequently answer the doorbell rung by reptiles going door-to-door selling magazines, thus causing eggs to go off - fiery rocks falling from the sky and somebody playing the fool with central air-conditioning was just the icing on the cake.

[bluefete]

who ever said this was the first universe? You may be right here. "And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." Genesis 1:2. It is assumed that there was something before the creation of the universe as we know it and it was destroyed in a mighty battle. This could be (I am theorizing here) the mighty, cataclysmic battle that took place betwen the good and bad angels in which Satan was thrown out of heaven. After all, when God created Adam 7 Eve his instruction to them was to "be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth". Genesis 1:28

again, u are being to self centered as a being. first the old world was all that existed, then when more places was found it was the center of every thing, then when it wasn't the center, the sun and every thing revolved around our earth, then when we revolve around the sun we are the only creation place, then when our suns are one among billions in a galaxy which is one among billions u say this is the first universe and all others are subsequent.

why must every thing revolve around u? We know from astronomical observations that we are just a speck in the universe. But God's promise has elevated us. Remeber we were created a little lower than the angels.is that a complex which developed when u believe god would bend over back wards for u? A complex? No. A privilege. Notwithstanding MGMan, we are still to find (beyond humans and angels) proof of ET.

when most other cultures lived in harmony with the environment and taught some sort of interdependence, u come now with ur idea of superiority and dominion. where and how were u conditioned like this? simple, in ur primary theology and the mechanisms to support it.

that is why i cannot believe that jesus is the son of god, it makes god servant to us because he gave up something great just for us, Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. This alone shows you the greatness of God. Mind you, this was only for His earthly ministry.which makes us superior and would make us intolerant of other beings.
u teach that u are important because god sacrifices other creation for u.
islam teaches we are important because we have the ability to maintain our environment, the responsibility to do so , and the intellectual capacity to figure out how it works.
we are commanded to gain knowledge from the cradle to the grave.
u are commanded as mega stated to stick to the book, as nothing else is important. I stated this already but "knowledge shall be increased.' Daniel 12:4

if u say u have to take care of the environment, u are wrong. god just goin and ask u if u believe in jesus as god or the son of god, whichever .
he put u to toil the land for ur own benefit, and not to maintain it.

we teach he gives us some knowledge of things, the ability and responsibility to maintain it, and only then to exist in it.

when u say that jesus cursed the fig tree for not bearing fruit, (or sumting like that) we say that even in war, a fruit tree must not be harmed as it is a blessing.

[bluefete]

How long ago do you think the dinosaurs were here?

Dinosaurs???
I thought Bluefete wanted to talk about what people said before they died... what kind of focus is this??? (Oh yeah, I forgot... this is a religious thread, and religions tend to be based on what certain people said before they died, anyway... besides, Bluefete's concept of focusing on a concept is to not do so... his is the scattershot approach to hitting a target - if you pack enough slugs into a cartridge, you must hit something of importance when you let fly - so if he brings up enough diverse topics instead of holding a discussion, then he is sooner or later going to answer someone's questions.) Everything is linked, my friend.

As far as dinosaurs are concerned, they lived in relative peace for millennia - apart from losing quite a few family members and friends to carnivores and tar-pits in grisly fashion - until they discovered religion. Religious wars, mass drownings due to total immersion baptisms, leaps of faith off precipices, and holy pilgrimages to tar-pits is what brought about the demise of most of these creatures. The rest became extinct due to leaving the nest too often to frequently answer the doorbell rung by reptiles going door-to-door selling magazines, thus causing eggs to go off - fiery rocks falling from the sky and somebody playing the fool with central air-conditioning was just the icing on the cake.

Very good analogy, though.

[bluefete]

New Evidence Shows Duck-like Birds Lived at Same Time as Dinosaurs
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

People don't generally picture ducks as having lived alongside dinosaurs. After all, it is widely assumed that birds evolved from dinosaurs over a period of millions of years. But fossils discovered two decades ago reveal clear evidence that they lived at the same time.

Gareth Dyke, a paleontologist at the University College Dublin, described in the July issue of Scientific American how changes began to occur in the 1990s to the stories of the evolutionary relationships between dinosaurs and birds. Certain gene or protein sequences of modern birds were compared and interpreted within a framework of evolutionary assumptions, giving rise to hypotheses regarding an evolutionary connection between birds and dinosaurs.

But most of these depictions of evolutionary relatedness are in conflict, as each gene, protein, or bone being examined is deemed to be more (or less) similar--with no real rhyme or reason--to various genes, proteins, or fossil bones from other supposed evolutionary relatives. Depending on which study is chosen, the avian in question could have sprung from any number of ancient forms. Dr. Dyke wrote, "Molecular biologists had long questioned the classical, fossil-based view of modern bird evolution."1 There seem, however, to be just as many questions related to the molecular biology-based view of such evolution.

These pervasive uncertainties are illustrated in studies of giant flightless birds called ratites. One report based on relative similarities between mitochondrial DNA sequences presented evidence that the extinct moa "emerged" first, then "gave rise" to rheas, ostriches, kiwis, and emus.2 But another study using the same DNA concluded that the evolutionary order should be rheas first and then moas.3 A later study of other genes from among some of the same birds produced yet another order: ostriches, rheas, emus, and then kiwis.4 This does not show evolution--it just shows confusion.

And it is not limited to bird evolution. The same problems plague studies of the evolution of plants,5 dinosaurs,6 insects,7 sharks,8 and "early man."9 Is there any biological realm that has a clear and universally accepted evolutionary story? Insightful researchers have said there is not.10

In his Scientific American article, Dr. Dyke recounted some startling discoveries of duck-like remains in Cretaceous rocks, which are typified by dinosaur fossils. But like the grass bits found in fossilized dinosaur dung in 2005, which appeared "much earlier than had been thought on the basis of fossils,"11 the discovery of ducks in the same kinds of rock layers as duckbill dinosaurs is another example of man-made evolutionary timelines being confounded by the data.

After more than a century of searching for a clear picture of evolution based on the fossil record, one evolutionary paleontologist admitted that "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."12 Nevertheless, Dyke's final sentence revealed his deep-seated faith that fossils will eventually supply evolution's missing answers: "Only with the discovery of more fossils--whether in the ground or in museum drawers--will we be able to determine how modern birds eluded elimination and took wing."1

This echoes the bias exhibited by anthropologist John Hawks when he told LiveScience, regarding the confusion over the evolutionary identity of an early human fossil, "We just need to find more skulls."13 Out-of-place fossils like Cretaceous ducks will continue to force revisions to evolutionary history because the fossil-centric approach ignores the best sources of historical data. The approach is disadvantaged by excluding these sources, and that deprives its whole interpretive framework of further avenues to explore the evidence.

Just as it is futile to attempt to reconstruct the entire history of a battle from what few scattered and decayed clues remain in the battlefield, one cannot reconstruct the major events of earth history using only fossils. Detailed knowledge of historical battles comes instead from written accounts.

Even so, the written accounts in Genesis should hold a prominent place for those who study earth's ancient past. These accounts clearly show that grass, dinosaurs, and birds co-existed--just as the fossil record demonstrates.

References

1. Dyke, G. 2010. Winged Victory: Modern Birds Now Found to Have Been Contemporaries of Dinosaurs. Scientific American. 303 (1): 70-75.
2. Haddrath, O. and A. J. Baker. 2001. Complete mitochondrial DNA genome sequences of extinct birds: ratite phylogenetics and the vicariance biogeography hypothesis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 268 (1470): 939-945.
3. Cooper, A. et al. 2001. Complete nitochondrial genome sequences of two extinct moas clarify ratite evolution. Nature. 409 (6821): 704-707.
4. Harshman, J. et al. 2008. Phylogenetic evidence for multiple losses of flight in ratite birds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105 (36): 13462-13467.
5. Thomas, B. New Study Contradicts Flower Fossil Dates. ICR News. Posted on icr.org April 9, 2010, accessed July 7, 2010.
6. Thomas, B. New Dinosaur Causes New Confusion. ICR News. Posted on icr.org December 18, 2009, accessed July 7, 2010.
7. Thomas, B. Rare Insect Evolved at the Wrong Time. ICR News. Posted on icr.org December 30, 2008, accessed July 7, 2010.
8. Sherwin, F. 2009. Sharks Remain Sharks. Acts & Facts. 38 (8): 16.
9. Thomas, B. Australopithecus sediba: Another Human Ancestor? ICR News. Posted on icr.org April 14, 2010, accessed July 7, 2010.
10. Thomas, B. and F. Sherwin. 2009. Darwin's Withering Tree of Life. Acts & Facts. 38(5): 16.
11. Prasad, V. et al. 2005. Dinosaur Coprolites and the Early Evolution of Grasses and Grazers. Science. 310 (5751): 1177-1180.
12. Raup, D. 1979. Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin. 50 (1): 25. Quoted in Morris, J. and F. Sherwin. 2010. The Fossil Record. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 129.
13. Choi, C. Q. Fossil Skeletons May Be Human Ancestor. LiveScience. Posted on livescience.com April 8, 2010, accessed July 8, 2010.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on July 14, 2010.

[bluefete]

Did Dinosaurs Die from an Impact?
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

For decades, various scientists have suggested that an impact from space ended the "age of dinosaurs." But most dinosaur fossil-bearing rock layers better support the biblical history of God's worldwide watery judgment, which destroyed all land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures not on the Ark--including dinosaurs.

Researchers have been tracking one of these fossil-bearing layers, a mysterious clay deposit found in numerous places over the globe. Called the K-T boundary, most creation geologists consider it to be near the upper border of late Flood-deposited Cretaceous rocks. By ignoring the Flood, evolutionists have become confused and conflicted in their interpretations of dinosaur fossils, massive sediments, and the K-T boundary.

Paleontologist and anti-creationist Donald Prothero1 once described

the bare-knuckle fisticuffs over the "K/T boundary" controversy. The debate has become so angry and polarized that almost no evidence will change the minds of the major players, because they are so committed to the positions they have argued for so long that they cannot afford to change positions and lose face as well as funding.2

Recently, 41 scientists revisited the impact theory. They examined the Chicxulub crater, which is buried below Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula and a corner of the Gulf of Mexico. It may have resulted from a meteoroid or asteroid impact, because some such event caused shock-metamorphosed crystals in the K-T boundary layers worldwide. The scientists stated in the March 5th issue of Science:

The correlation between impact-derived ejecta and paleontologically defined extinctions at multiple locations around the globe leads us to conclude that the Chicxulub impact triggered the mass extinction that marks the boundary between the Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras ~65.5 million years ago.3

Thus, headlines confidently declared, "It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs."4 But enough unanswered questions remain to doubt this pronouncement.

The researchers noted a drop in the prominence of impact-altered minerals found in the corresponding layer farther away from Chicxulub, so the impact did not leave a global footprint. The associated sedimentary layer also thins out farther away from the crater. They stated that this rock unit, "up to 80 meters thick in places, was deposited in [an] extremely brief period," which corresponds to a tsunami resulting from the impact.3

Something the authors did not address is the close, flat contact between the impact layers and the strata above and below them. Erosion ruts, chemical weathering, or sediment stirring by creatures or roots appears to be absent. It is as if the impact layer was deposited after the sediment below it had just been laid down.

Also, dinosaur fossils in Montana and New Mexico were found above the K-T boundary. That puts them after the event that caused it, so dinosaurs did not die off completely at the time of the impact!5,6 Biblical creation predicts this, since dinosaur kinds did not go extinct (if they all have) until after the Flood, which occurred only thousands of years ago.7

An object may have struck the earth, but that alone does not explain the dinosaurs' demise. Physicist Donald DeYoung noted that such an impact would not have targeted dinosaurs for extinction and left less mobile creatures--such as turtles, crocodiles, and some mammals and birds--alive. Prothero also mentioned this problem, including sensitive salamanders among the curious survivors.

When it comes to dinosaur extinction, pronouncements that the case is closed seem premature. Further investigation of both geological and biblical data is still required.

References

1. In 2007, Prothero published Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, an uninformed and malevolent "critique" of creation science.
2. Prothero, D. 2004. Bringing Fossils to Life. New York: McGraw-Hill, 90.
3. Schulte, P. et. al. 2010. The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction at the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary. Science. 327(5970): 1214-1218.
4. Kelland, K. It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. Reuters, March 4, 2010.
5. DeYoung, D. B. 2001. Chicxulub and the Demise of the Dinosaurs. Acts & Facts. 30 (4).
6. Thomas, B. Rewriting the Last Dinosaur's Tombstone. ICR News. Posted on icr.org May 11, 2009, accessed March 8, 2010.
7. Morris, J. 2008. The Dinosaur Next Door. Acts & Facts. 37 (6): 13.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Cite this article: Thomas, B. 2010. Did Dinosaurs Die from an Impact? Acts & Facts. 39 (5): 16.

[d spike]

who ever said this was the first universe? You may be right here. "And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." Genesis 1:2. It is assumed that there was something before the creation of the universe as we know it and it was destroyed in a mighty battle.

Eh??? Who assumed this? On what grounds?

[bluefete]

who ever said this was the first universe? You may be right here. "And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." Genesis 1:2. It is assumed that there was something before the creation of the universe as we know it and it was destroyed in a mighty battle.

Eh??? Who assumed this? On what grounds?

You left out the instructions to Adam & Eve: "... and replenish the earth" Genesis 1:28

Replenish means to fill again; as something that has been emptied.

Why would God give Adam & Eve this instruction?

Could there have been a mis-translation of the word elsewhere?

[bluefete]

Duane: I am giving you the latest scientific research. Now stop hemming and hawing and deal with it.

New Chromosome Research
Undermines
Human-Chimp Similarity Claims

J E F F R E Y T O M K I N S , P h . D . & B R I A N T H O M A S , M . S


A recent high-profile article in the journal Nature released the
results of a study with implications that shocked the scientific
community because they contradict long-held claims
of human-chimp DNA similarity.1
A previous Acts & Facts
article showed that much of the research surrounding the often touted
claims of 98 percent (or higher) DNA similarity between chimps and
humans has been based on flawed and biased research.2 The problem is
that the similarity has been uncertain because no one has performed an
unbiased and comprehensive DNA similarity study until now. And the
results are not good news for the story of human evolution.

One of the main deficiencies with the original chimpanzee genome
sequence published in 20053 was that it was a draft sequence and only
represented a 3.6-fold random coverage of the 21 chimpanzee autosomes,
and a 1.8-fold redundancy of the X and Y sex chromosomes. In a
draft coverage, very small fragments of the genome are sequenced in millions
of individual reactions using high-throughput robotics equipment.

This produces individual sequence fragments of about 500 to 1,200 bases
in length. Based on overlapping reads, these individual sequences are
assembled into contiguous clusters of sequence called sequencing contigs.
In the case of a chimpanzee, an organism with a genome size of about 3
billion bases, a 3.6-fold coverage means that approximately 10.8 billion
bases of DNA were sequenced (3.6 x 3.0). The result is a data set consisting
of thousands of random sequencing contigs, or islands of contiguous
sequence that need to be oriented and placed in position on their respective
chromosomes.

In the 2005 chimpanzee genome project and resulting Nature journal
publication, the sequence contigs4 were not assembled and oriented
based on a map of the chimpanzee genome, but rather on a map of the
human genome. Given the fact that the chimpanzee genome is at least 10
percent larger5 overall than the human genome, this method of assembly
was not only biased toward an evolutionary presupposition of humanchimp
similarity, but was also inherently flawed.

The title of the recent journal article accurately sums up the research
findings: “Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes are Remarkably
Divergent in Structure and Gene Content.”
Before getting into the details of their results, it is important to understand that for the first time, the
chimpanzee DNA sequence for a
chromosome was assembled and
oriented based on a Y chromosome
map/framework built for chimpanzee
and not human. As a result, the
chimpanzee DNA sequence could
then be more accurately compared to
the human Y chromosome because
it was standing on its own merit.
The Y chromosome is found
only in males and contains many
genes that specify male features, as
well as genetic and regulatory information
that is expressed throughout
the whole body. Because of
the recent outcome comparing the
chimp and human Y chromosomes
in a more objective assessment, it is
possible that major discrepancies
will be revealed among the other
chromosomes that are claimed to be
so similar.

From a large-scale perspective,
the human and chimp Y chromosomes
were constructed entirely
differently. On the human Y chromosome,
there were found four
major categories of DNA sequence
that occupy specific regions. One
can think of this in terms of geography.
Just as a continent like Europe
is divided into countries because of
different people groups, so are chromosomes
with different categories
of DNA sequence.

Not only were the locations of DNA categories completely different
between human and chimp, but so were their proportions. One sequence
class, or category containing DNA with a characteristic sequence, within
the chimpanzee Y chromosome had less than 10 percent similarity with
the same class in the human Y chromosome, and vice versa. Another large
class shared only half the similarities of the other species, and vice versa.
One differed by as much as 3.3-fold (330 percent), and a class specific
to human “has no counterpart in the chimpanzee MSY [male-specific Y
chromosome].”1

As far as looking at specific genes, the chimp and human Y chromosomes
had a dramatic difference in gene content of 53 percent. In
other words, the chimp was lacking approximately half of the genes
found on a human Y chromosome. Because genes occur in families or
similarity categories, the researchers also sought to determine if there was
any difference in actual gene categories. They found a shocking 33 percent
difference. The human Y chromosome contains a third more gene
categories—entirely different classes of genes—compared to chimps.
Under evolutionary assumptions of long and gradual genetic
changes, the Y chromosome structures, layouts, genes, and other
sequences should be much the same in both species, given the relatively
short—according to the evolutionary timeline—six-million-year time
span since chimpanzees and humans supposedly diverged from a common
ancestor. Instead, the differences between the Y chromosomes are
marked. R. Scott Hawley, a genetics researcher at the Stowers Institute
in Kansas City who wasn’t involved in the research, told the Associated
Press, “That result is astounding.”6

Because virtually every structural aspect of the human and chimp
Y chromosomes was different, it was hard to arrive at an overall similarity
estimate between the two. The researchers did postulate an overall
70 percent similarity, which did not take into account size differences or
structural arrangement differences. This was done by concluding that
only 70 percent of the chimp sequence could be aligned with the human
sequence—not taking into account differences within the alignments.
In other words, 70 percent was a conservative estimate, especially
when considering that 50 percent of the human genes were missing
from the chimp, and that the regions that did have some similarity were
located in completely different patterns. When all aspects of non-similarity—
sequence categories, genes, gene families, and gene position—are
taken into account, it is safe to say that the overall similarity was lower
than 70 percent. The Nature article expressed the discrepancy between
this data and standard evolutionary interpretations in a rather intriguing
way: “Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene
content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference
in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years
of separation.”1

So, the human Y chromosome looks just as different from a chimp
as the other human chromosomes do from a chicken. And to explain
where all these differences between humans and chimps came from,
believers in big-picture evolution are forced to invent stories of major
chromosomal rearrangements and rapid generation of vast amounts of
many new genes, along with accompanying regulatory DNA.
However, since each respective Y chromosome appears fully integrated
and interdependently stable with its host organism, the most logical
inference from the Y chromosome data is that humans and chimpanzees
were each specially created as distinct creatures.

References
1. Hughes, J.F. et al. 2010. Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in
structure gene content. Nature. 463 (7280): 536-539.
2. Tomkins, J.P. 2009. Human-chimp similarities: common ancestries or flawed research? Acts &
Facts. 38 (6): 12.
3. The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. 2005. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee
genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature 437 (7055): 69-87.
4. For the sequencing technology in use at the time, a typical DNA sequence read used four different
types of DNA clone substrates and had individual read lengths from between 200 to 1,000 highquality
DNA bases. Because of repetitive blocks of sequence, these are difficult to computationally
assemble into long contiguous blocks of sequence without a map or framework to orient the
repetitive DNA sequence lengths.
5. Statistics on sequencing and mapping of the chimp genome are difficult to pin down even though
the mapping and sequencing were largely completed by 2006. A report describing the massive
effort to produce a more accurate
view of the chimpanzee
genome has not yet been published.
6. Borenstein, S. Men more
evolved? Y chromosome study
stirs debate. Associated Press,
January 13, 2010.

Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate
and Mr. Thomas is Science
Writer.

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/af/af1004.pdf

[d spike]

who ever said this was the first universe? You may be right here. "And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." Genesis 1:2. It is assumed that there was something before the creation of the universe as we know it and it was destroyed in a mighty battle.

Eh??? Who assumed this? On what grounds?

You left out the instructions to Adam & Eve: "... and replenish the earth" Genesis 1:28

Replenish means to fill again; as something that has been emptied.

Why would God give Adam & Eve this instruction?

Could there have been a mis-translation of the word elsewhere?

I guess you will have to check the original Babylonian epic that it was copied from in the first place...

[bluefete]

who ever said this was the first universe? You may be right here. "And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." Genesis 1:2. It is assumed that there was something before the creation of the universe as we know it and it was destroyed in a mighty battle.

Eh??? Who assumed this? On what grounds?

You left out the instructions to Adam & Eve: "... and replenish the earth" Genesis 1:28

Replenish means to fill again; as something that has been emptied.

Why would God give Adam & Eve this instruction?

Could there have been a mis-translation of the word elsewhere?

I guess you will have to check the original Babylonian epic that it was copied from in the first place...

Would that be the Epic of Gilgamesh?

[bluefete]

MGMan: Aliens?



Exploring Earth's Extremes in a Futile Quest for Life in Space
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Extremophiles are organisms that can thrive in unexpectedly hostile environments. These include bacteria and fungi growing in extremely hot, cold, nutrient-deprived, or salty environments. Experiments that purposely stress extremophiles in order to test their limits have shown that earth's tiniest cells have many survival tricks up their sleeves.

Why are scientists interested in extremophiles? It comes down to dollars and astrobiology--the search for extraterrestrial life. NASA-funded studies are using earth's extremophiles to explore the possibility that living cells exist elsewhere,1 since it is much less expensive to look for hardy organisms here than it is to spend billions of dollars on planetary explorations--which so far have gathered decades of negative news about the existence of life outside of the earth.2

Astrobiologists reason that if hardy cells can survive "impossible" places on earth, maybe they are also surviving hostile environments on other planets or moons, even though no traces of life have been found out in space.

A new, non-NASA related study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences sought to test the limits of cold tolerance in a species of fungus that had been screened for extreme cold resistance. The fungus was introduced to fructose, which falls into a category of chemicals called "chaotropes" that at room temperature disrupt molecules used in cell processes. When the fungus was grown at near-freezing temperatures, it accumulated extra fructose. The fungus cells also excluded chemicals that at room temperature help to keep cell chemistry orderly and operating smoothly.

As the water in the organism began to thicken toward freezing, the cells' vital chemical reactions likely slowed down. So, the cells "knew" that if they could find chemicals from their environment that could disrupt the freezing process, it would keep their internal chemicals unfrozen enough to continue interacting, which would keep the cell alive.

Not only could the fungus adjust to extremely low temperatures, but the cells somehow produced and maintained their own disrupting "antifreeze" chemical--glycerol--to help them survive the cold. The authors of the study stated, "In accordance with our hypothesis (but, nevertheless, to our surprise), cells preferentially synthesized and accumulated a chaotropic-compatible solute, glycerol."3

What was surprising about this find? They explained that "it is energy expensive" to manufacture and retain the glycerol. Eventually, though, the cells spend so much energy on this that there is none left for other cell processes. When the temperature dipped below 1.7 degrees Celsius, the fungus died, probably because it could no longer afford to retain chaotropes.4

Although the authors stated that "this information can enhance the precision of models used to predict if extraterrestrial and other hostile environments are able to support life,"3 what it really does is enhance scientific knowledge of the expertise of life's Designer.

An earth-bound fungus' abilities to "preferentially synthesize and accumulate" glycerol imply an array of features that should not only have surprised these researchers by their effectiveness, intricacies, and miniaturization, but should have shown the implausibility of cells having evolved through random processes anywhere in the universe.

First, the fungus has a mechanism that can distinguish the desired chemical from all others present. Second, it must have some built-in information about the significance of that chemical--i.e., an "awareness" that it can support the cell in cold temperatures. Third, it has to have a mechanism to physically "grab" each chemical, and a switch to turn that mechanism on at the right temperature--which implies an internal thermometer.

Fourth, an array of cellular machinery is needed to manufacture glycerol. Fifth, a sensitive and effective set of molecular pumps, as well as their on/off switches and energy sources, must constantly keep the glycerol and fructose inside the cell, since concentrated glycerol tends to diffuse outward. Surely this fungus was a product of a wise and benevolent Creator, who equipped it with the precise biological features needed to survive extreme cold.

Spectacular cellular systems like these have some researchers in a quandary. For example, a recent article in Astrobiology Magazine quoted astrophysicist Paul Davies' new book reflecting on the absence of evidence for extraterrestrials. In The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence, Davies wrote:

To a physicist like me, life looks to be a little short of magic: all those dumb molecules conspiring to achieve such clever things! How do they do it? There is no orchestrator, no choreographer directing the performance, no esprit de corps, no collective will, no life force--just mindless atoms pushing and pulling on each other, kicked about by random thermal fluctuations. Yet the end product is an exquisite and highly distinctive form of order.5

What makes that "form of order" distinctive are "specifications." Specified order is equal to information, which is exclusively the product of intelligence. Davies asks good questions. But as long as he insists, against the evidence, that "there is no orchestrator," he restricts himself to a dark conceptual box labeled "naturalism," where inept answers suggesting "magical" forces are all that is available.

The discovery that certain fungi can survive in colder temperatures by means of fantastic molecular machinery makes mincemeat out of the strange argument that finding extremophiles on earth indicates that they might also exist on other planets. It does, however, show evidence for a Creator.

References

1. Fact sheet from NASA Astrobiology Program. Posted on astrobiology.nasa.gov, accessed April 22, 2010.
2. For example see this recent summary: Moskowitz, C. NASA: Claims of Life on Mars 'Positively False.' Space.com. Posted on space.com April 29, 2010, accessed May 4, 2010.
3. Chin, J. P. et al. 2010. Solutes determine the temperature windows for microbial survival and growth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (17): 7835-7840.
4. However, the fungi were able to manufacture spores that withstood an incredible -70 degrees Celsius.
5. Davies, P. 2010. The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Quoted in Mullen, L. The Eerie Silence. Astrobiology Magazine. Posted on astrobio.net April 12, 2010, accessed April 21, 2010.

Image credit: NASA

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on May 11, 2010.

[d spike]

Food for thought

[bluefete]

Food for thought

You are assuming, of course, that alien civilization (if it exists) would have made the same mistakes as us humans.

[MG Man]

bluey, my question.............
who is the hero of the alien's bible?
surely not jesus

[bluefete]

d spike - In line with your point above:

21 Years Until Alien Contact?
by Frank Sherwin, M.A.



Although evolutionary naturalism has failed to empirically document the molecules-to-man philosophy,1 it makes great strides in sparking the imagination. For example, Hollywood continues to release futuristic, evolution-based movies replete with eye-popping special effects and paper-thin plots. Such films — and numerous television programs — have convinced many that LGM's (little green men or aliens) actually exist.

With evolutionism as the foundation of astronomy, many scientists speculate that the universe is possibly teeming with evolving life forms. The normally staid National Geographic has recently featured a book entitled, Cosmic Company, by astronomers Shostak and Barnett, who use evolutionism to make their questionable case.2 They speak of enormous lengths of time and then state that it would be inconceivable that nothing would evolve somewhere in the universe during those millennia. Each argument against the existence of life somewhere else is met with an evolutionary retort. They also say that we may make contact with aliens by 2025.

There are a number of secular scientists (including the late S. J. Gould) who disagree. In 2000, two scientists showed convincingly in a 315-page book "why complex life is uncommon in the universe."3 Like Darwinists "documenting" transitional forms, some space researchers have resorted to computer simulations to argue for aliens in the cosmos. For all the bravado of claiming worlds like our own exist, Spaceflight Now recently admitted, "It currently is impossible to detect Earthlike planets around other stars."4 In other words, at the empirical (observational) level astronomers have come up empty handed.

Creation scientists maintain that we will never receive messages or entertain intergalactic visitors from deep space simply because there are no such civilizations out there. "As far as the Scriptures are concerned, they teach unequivocally that the earth is uniquely the abode of man [Psalm 115:16 and Acts 17:20]... It seems grotesque and blasphemous to suggest that the tragedy of Calvary's cross should be repeated on millions of other planets, for the benefit of other unknown and hypothetical members of God's creation."5 Theoretical speculations and imaginative evolution-based predictions aside, all research beyond Earth has shown that when it comes to organic
life — we're it.

_____________________________
1. Forey, P., Reviews, Journal of Paleontology, 77(1) 2003, p. 200.
2. See news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1114_031114_setisearch.html
3. Ward & Brownlee, Rare Earth, Copernicus, 2000.
4. Spaceflight Now, U. of WA news release, posted December 10, 2003.
5. Morris & Clark, The Bible has the Answer, Master Books, 1976 p. 76-77.

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/196/239/

[bluefete]

bluey, my question.............
who is the hero of the alien's bible?
surely not jesus

If there is one God and One creator of the universe, it stands to reason that He would be the same for the aliens.

[bluefete]

Canadian 'Mega' Dinosaur Bonebed Formed by Watery Catastrophe
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Canadian scientists have found a massive dinosaur fossil graveyard in Alberta containing so many bones that it calls into question the standard stories of slow and gradual dinosaur fossil formation. No mere river flood could account for so many casualties. So, the researchers proposed that the cause was something much more violent.

The formal description of the discovery was published in a book titled New Perspectives on Horned Dinosaurs.1 Co-editor David Eberth, Senior Research Scientist at the Royal Tyrrell Museum, stated in a museum news release, "Data from this mega bonebed provide pretty clear evidence that these, and other dinosaurs, were routinely wiped out by catastrophic tropical storms that flooded what was once a coastal lowland here in Alberta, 76 million years ago."2

The "bonebed" covers almost a square mile and contains many Centrosaurus remains. These dinosaurs looked like the more familiar Triceratops, but had additional horns protruding from their skulls. Eberth said of the site that "the scale of the carnage must have been breathtaking" as these and other creatures tried but failed to escape the onrushing waters. Flying or swimming creatures were not fossilized en masse like the larger lumbering beasts, and the researchers reasoned that they were able to escape the overpowering waves.

But where did the water come from that could cause such mayhem? The researchers proposed a "tropical storm model," in which hurricanes must have washed water up onto a shallow coast.2 That hypothesis shares some similarities to the flood model proposed by creation scientists, but how well does each fit this fossil data?

The standard dinosaur fossilization story holds that the reptiles were crossing a stream and got caught in a rising river. But no rising streams today deposit fossil graveyards. Tropical storms, however, are known to drive water ashore and devastate landscapes, washing over whatever animals lie in their paths. The tropical storm model may be an improvement over the flooded stream scenario, but it is equally true that today's hurricane storm surges don't produce fossil graveyards either!

And warm oceans are required to generate these weather patterns, hence the term "tropical" in "tropical storm." Canada is not very tropical, and even if it was once 2,500 miles further south, any ancient tropical storm similar to today's tempests might pile up carcasses, but would not bury them deep enough to keep them from rotting before they could fossilize.

Eberth cited hurricanes as the reason why dinosaur fossils "are often found preserved so exquisitely."2 And yet "exquisite" fossil preservation is not a byproduct of even the most powerful of today's hurricanes. A more catastrophic event is needed that could carry much more sediment to deeply bury the remains and keep them from decaying. None of today's natural processes are adequate to explain the centrosaur and other fossil graveyards.

The basic description of the historical account provided in Genesis, which is corroborated by hundreds of legends,3 depicts rising waters that eventually washed over all of the earth's continents before running into today's deeper ocean basins. Such a universal deluge fits the facts of the Canadian mass kill with the fewest logical leaps.

It makes more sense to interpret this fossil graveyard as a result of one of the many tsunami-like waves that gradually pulsed over the continents during the course of the year-long Flood event, when "the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered."4

References

1. Ryan, M. J., B. J. Chinnery-Allgeier and D. A. Eberth, eds. 2010. New Perspectives on Horned Dinosaurs. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
2. Alberta Dinosaur Bonebed Is Largest ever Found. Royal Tyrrell Museum news release, June 17, 2010.
3. Hoesch, W. 2008. The Hualapai and the Flood. Acts & Facts. 37 (1): 16.
4. Genesis 7:19.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on July 13, 2010.

[MG Man]

bluey, my question.............
who is the hero of the alien's bible?
surely not jesus

If there is one God and One creator of the universe, it stands to reason that He would be the same for the aliens.

then what would be the relevance of Jesus to them?
why did god send his son in human form and only to earth?

[Chimera]

[bluefete]

Are Fossils the Result of Noah's Flood?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.


Fossils have been frequently cited as the main evidence for evolution. The evolution/uniformitarian worldview postulates that the slow and gradual processes we see operating today are responsible not only for the death and extinction of plant and animal types but their burial in sediments which will eventually harden into sedimentary rocks. Uniformity’s slogan, “the present is the key to the past,” reflects their view of the origin of the features in the rock and fossil record. I think the great Flood of Noah’s day is a better explanation.

First note that very few fossils are forming today and then only in the case of rapid burial by water. For instance what happens to a fish when it dies? It either floats to the surface or sinks to the bottom where it decays and is eaten by scavengers. Yet many fish fossils are so exquisitely preserved that even the scales and organs are preserved. Obviously there was no time for decay and bacterial action. We can certainly say that something extraordinary happened to form the fossils.

Furthermore, most fossils occur in huge fossil graveyards where things from different habitats are mixed together in a watery grave. The predominant type of fossil is that of marine invertebrates but these are found on the continents within catastrophically deposited rock units.

Of the several different kinds of fossils, each one requires rapid burial and circumstances which are seldom, if ever, at work today. Processes of fossilization include:

Mineralization: This happens by partial or entire replacement of an organism by minerals, usually one molecule at a time as the organism decays. Time is involved but not time before burial. Petrification occurs when the replacing mineral is silica.

Carbonization: Living things consist of high carbon content, and under extraordinary circumstances only the carbon remains. This includes the thick coal bands as well as thin carbon residues left in the host rock. Rapid isolation and heating is required.

Impressions: These common fossils occur when the entire organism is replaced by the same material as the host rock leaving only the form of an organism. The detail preserved indicates no time for decay.

Ephemeral markings: These common markings include worm burrows, animal tracks, coprolites, and rain-drop impressions. All are extremely fragile and need rapid lithification to be preserved.

Hard parts: Bones and shells are found but these are usually broken. For instance, limbs ripped from dinosaurs, found in fossil graveyards, are the rule.

Soft parts: Obviously these will only last for a very short time without rapid burial. These include flesh, feathers, skin, scales, plant tissue, color, and even smell.

Frozen parts: These imply extremely low temperatures which trapped and froze the organisms quickly. Certainly this is not happening now on any scale.

These fossil types (and other subcategories could be mentioned) require extraordinary circumstances of a rapid and catastrophic nature. The great Flood of Noah’s day which destroyed a world full of life is the best explanation.

[d spike]

Food for thought

You are assuming, of course, that alien civilization (if it exists) would have made the same mistakes as us humans.

You are assuming, of course, that I was being serious.
I just posted these pics to offset the dreary verbage being posted...
Personally, I don't agree with the thinking behind the first cartoon, but I did find it amusing.

[bluefete]

bluey, my question.............
who is the hero of the alien's bible?
surely not jesus

If there is one God and One creator of the universe, it stands to reason that He would be the same for the aliens.

then what would be the relevance of Jesus to them?
why did god send his son in human form and only to earth?

It is possible the aliens may have a closer relationship with Him than we do at this point in time.

God sent Jesus in human form and only to earth because ALIENS DO NOT EXIST!!

Again, I paraphrase my father: God was having a conversation in heaven and asked "Who will go to redeem Adam's fallen race?" Jesus said: "I will". And there was silence in heaven for one hour.

[bluefete]

d spike: At least you have a sense of humor! Twisted! But still ...

[MG Man]

[quote="bluefete"]
God sent Jesus in human form and only to earth because ALIENS DO NOT EXIST!!/quote]

I can't wait to hear the great christian backpedal when they find microbes on Europa

[bluefete]

I just posted these pics to offset the dreary verbage being posted...

Dreary verbage!!! Wait a minute. Now that I am giving the rationalists the empirical evidence that they have always requested, it seems that they have suddenly gone cold.