Corporate Christian Crusade

[dissent]

http://vcp.med.harvard.edu/timeline/luria-delbruck.html

What Mendel did for genetics, Luria & Delbrück did for bacterial genetics4. They founded the subject by showing that bacterial resistance to infection by phages arises spontaneously in bacteria, implying the existence of genes that can be mutated, rather than being induced by contact between virus and bacterium.

Imagine several vats of bacterial culture, growing under identical conditions. An aliquot is taken from each vat and plated onto a viral lawn. Resistant bacteria give rise to colonies on the plate. If resistance arises by induction after contact, then the number of colonies should follow a Poisson distribution. Hence, the mean number of colonies should equal the variance. If, however, resistance arises from spontaneous mutation of bacteria in the vats prior to coming into contact with virus, then the number of initial occurrences in a vat would follow a Poisson distribution but each occurrence would give rise to a clone of resistant bacteria within the corresponding vat. An aliquot from the vat would then have resistant bacteria whose number would depend on how long the clonal population(s) had been growing. This distribution is not easy to calculate; Delbrück (presumably) spent much of the paper4 doing it. The essential point is that the distribution is no longer Poisson but something like a large multiple of a Poisson distribution. (The distribution itself is needed if you want to estimate the mutation rate5, not just infer the existence of mutations.) Accordingly, the variance of the distribution should now be much larger than its mean. A straightforward calculation of the mean and variance of the number of resistant colonies will therefore distinguish induction from mutation. A simple idea but one with profound consequences for the development of molecular biology.

I’m not a geneticist, but it sounds like the Luria Delbruck experiment was asking the question of whether the bacteriophages were causing the mutations to occur in the bacterial cultures, or if the resistant strains that developed were due to random mutations that may (or may not) have been present in a given bacterial culture. A mathematical analysis of the repeated experiments led them to conclude that the mutations were randomly distributed, and not induced by the presence of the bacteriophage.

[Tunnelcat]

Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.

The fact of evolution is that (populations of) organisms have changed over time. The theory (or theories) of evolution is the attempt to explain how that change occurred. Gravity is another example of a concept that is both theory and fact.

The only way to prove it beyond a doubt as fact would be if we could time travel into the past and actually observe life's beginning and progression over time.

"Proof" is another idea that is confused between it's use in the vernacular and it's relation to science. see discussion in first link above.

I agree that the fact part applies when it comes to the observable changes we've seen over time, both in the fossil record and in present-day populations of organisms. The theory part also applies as a WAY to explain that change. But the problem comes in when it's used to explain the ORIGINS of life, especially the origins of humans, that garners the most vociferous objection by most religions. Using evolution to explain the origins of both life and humans still is basically a 'theory' because we have no concrete proof, say, the first documented fossil life form (probably not ever possible) or a set of fossils or remains that show the exact progression of human development over time (also probably not possible). We will always be stuck with an incomplete record of time. Proof will either come in the form of some type of future time travel observations or perhaps GOD or other omnipotent being, stepping forward and showing us.

My gripe with the religious view is the time line. Humans are far older than the 6000 years stated in the Bible from what we see in the fossil record. So is the earth. Those ARE facts. Religion also denies that any similar to human fossils from before that 6000 year time period are a related species. In their world, modern humans are all we ever were in the past and present. That's where evolution doesn't fit their world view, that we evolved from ape-like predecessors. If churches want to come up with the 'Creationist' view of the origin of life, that's their right, but it's NOT science for everyone. All science has, at the moment, for the origin of life is evolution, based on theories and facts, as part of modern science, since we have no other record of the beginning. That's the way it should be taught when science tries to explain the origins of life, as a 'theory'. There are no 'facts' when it comes to the 'beginning' of everything.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Humans are far older than the 6000 years stated in the Bible from what we see in the fossil record. So is the earth. Those ARE facts.

Wrong. These "facts" are still interpreted. As is the notion that we are apes.

It's funny. I read a bit the other day in a book about dinosaurs. There was a dinosaur that looked almost just like a T-Rex, but they said there was no relation... But we're related to apes... Hey, it's your story, tell it any way you like.

[Krom]

:words:

Actually evolution doesn't apply or care in the slightest about the origins of life. It is the study of how things change, not how things originally began. Science has no answer to what started life on earth in the first place and answering that question is beyond the intended scope of the theory of evolution.

Even the name evolution gives away the intended scope. If science was working on a theory for how life began it would probably be called: "Genesis".

[CUDA]

I agree that the fact part applies when it comes to the observable changes we've seen over time,

here's another set of scientific facts that are not taught in school about the changes in the earth over time

EARTH ROTATION—The spin of the earth—which is now about 1,000 miles [1609 km] an hour—is gradually slowing down. Gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon, and other factors cause this. If the earth were really billions of years old, as claimed, it would already have stopped turning on its axis! This is yet another evidence that our world is not very old.

Lord Kelvin (the 19th-century physicist who introduced the Kelvin temperature scale) used this slowing rotation as a reason why the earth could not be very old. The decline in rotation rate is now known to be greater than previously thought (Thomas G. Barnes, "Physics: A Challenge to ‘Geologic Times,’ " Impact 16, July 1974).

Using a different calculation, we can extrapolate backward from our present spin rate; and 5 billion years ago our planet would have had to be spinning so fast it would have changed to the shape of a flat pancake. We, today, would still have the effects of that: Our equator would now reach 40 miles [64 km] up into the sky, and our tropical areas—and all our oceans—would be at the poles. So, by either type of calculation, our world cannot be more than a few thousand years old.

MAGNETIC FIELD DECAY—As you probably know, the earth has a magnetic field. Without it, we could not use compasses to identify the direction of magnetic north (which is close to the North Pole). Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, a physics teacher at the University of Texas, has authored a widely used college textbook on electricity and magnetism. Working with data collected over the past 135 years, he has pointed out that earth’s magnetic field is gradually decaying. Indeed, he has shown that this magnetic field is decreasing exponentially, according to a decay law similar to the decay of radioactive substances.

In 1835 the German physicist, K.F. Gauss, made the first measurement of the earth’s magnetic dipole moment; that is, the strength of earth’s internal magnet. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent!

On the basis of facts obtained from 1835 to 1965, this magnetic field appears to have a half-life of 1,400 years. On this basis, even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it now has. Just 20,000 years ago, enough Joule heat would have been generated to liquefy the earth. One million years ago the earth would have had greater magnetism than all objects in the universe, and it would have vaporized! It would appear that the earth could not be over 6,000 or 7,000 years old. (On the accompanying graph, beyond the point where the curve becomes vertical, our planet would have had the magnetosphere power of a magnetic star!)

"The over-all intensity of the field is declining at a rate of 26 nanoteslas per year . . If the rate of decline were to continue steadily, the field strength would reach zero in 1,200 years."—*"Magnetic Field Declining," Science News, June 28, 1980.

"In the next two millennia, if the present rate of decay is sustained, the dipole component of the [earth’s magnetic] field should reach zero."—*Scientific American, December 1989.

This magnetic decay process is not a local process, such as one would find in uranium, but worldwide; it affects the entire earth. It has been accurately measured for over 150 years, and is not subject to environmental changes since it is generated deep in the earth’s interior.

If any fundamental planetary process ought to be a reliable indicator of the earth’s age, it should be our earth’s magnetic field—and it indicates an upper limit of decidedly less than 10,000 years for the age of the earth.

SOLAR COLLAPSE—Research studies indicate that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased to exist. Recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller—in order for life to be sustained on our planet.

"By analyzing data from Greenwich Observatory in the period 1836-1953, John A. Eddy [Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder] and Aram A. Boornazian [mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston] have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century during that time, corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour. And digging deep into historical records, Eddy has found 400-year-old eclipse observations that are consistent with such a shrinkage."— *"Sun is Shrinking," Physics Today, September 1979.

Extrapolating back, 100,000 years ago, the sun would have been about twice its present size, making life untenable

MOON DUST—Although most people do not know it, one of the reasons so much money was spent to send a rocket to the moon was to see how thick the dust was on its surface!

Evolutionists had long held to the fact (as we do) that the earth and moon are about the same age. It is believed, by many, that the earth and its moon are billions of years old. If that were true, the moon would by now have built up a 20-60 mile [32 to 97 km] layer of dust on it!

In *Isaac Asimov’s first published essay (1958), he wrote:

" . . I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship [to the moon], picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov on Science: A Thirty-Year Retrospective (1989), xvi-xvii.

In the 1950s, *R.A. Lyttleton, a highly respected astronomer, said this:

"The lunar surface is exposed to direct sunlight, and strong ultraviolet light and X-rays [from the sun] can destroy the surface layers of exposed rock and reduce them to dust at the rate of a few ten-thousandths of an inch per year. But even this minute amount could, during the age of the moon, be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep."—*R.A. Lyttleton, quoted in R. Wysong, Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 175.

In 5 to 10 billion years, 3 or 4/10,000ths of an inch per year would produce 20-60 miles [32-97 km] of dust. In view of this, our men at NASA were afraid to send men to the moon. Landing there, they would be buried in dust and quickly suffocate! So NASA first sent an unmanned lander to its surface, which made the surprising discovery that there was hardly any dust on the moon! In spite of that discovery, Neil Armstrong was decidedly worried about this dust problem as his March 1970 flight in Apollo 11 neared. He feared his lunar lander would sink deeply into it and he and Edwin Aldrin would perish. But because the moon is young, they had no problem. There is not over 2 or 3 inches [5.08 or 7.62 cm] of dust on its surface! That is the amount one would expect if the moon were about 6000-8000 years old

[dissent]

At least several of these YEC arguments are addressed here -
How Good are those Young Earth Arguments

The moon dust one is interesting - it is No. 1 on the AiG list of Arguments that creationists should never use.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Interesting.

So far there's one thing I don't get, however. How could the sun not be shrinking? How on earth could it possibly be expanding? That seems to defy logic!

[dissent]

see http://www.michielb.nl/sun/leven.htm . this is the general idea of what is expected to happen over the next few billion years.


even more detail at
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... tas97.html

[Sergeant Thorne]

Excuse me for being skeptical, but I don't see any reason why these folks should know the things stated in your first link. It seems like a real stretch to be laying out events that theoretically take place over the course of well over 3,000,000 times the span of their own lifetime, at best. Where do they get the evidence for a theory of that magnitude?

I don't want to get ahead of the discussion, but I say it because to me it sounds like so much fanciful speculation, based on a relatively niggardly understanding of only the elements that make up our sun.

Is this the sort of thing that people us to make the Bible a lie? That's not nearly good enough.

[Spidey]

JFTR…I for one, have never called the Bible a “book of lies” I simply accept the fact that it was written by people with a different understanding of the universe, than mine.

Oh, and by the way…Christian scientists using science to disprove science and prove the Bible…that is just about the silliest thing I have ever heard, get over it guys…it’s faith not science, stick to it., and leave the science to real scientists.

There is no scientific proof of the bible, I’m pretty sure God planned it that way. (wouldn’t be faith then, would it)

[flip]

I figure truth is truth no matter how silly it is and I try not to go beyond what I know. Helps me make the right decisions and all

Back to 1943. As far as I can tell Dissent, before that first study, mutation wasn't even a consideration. I even searched the word mutation by itself and every hit seemed directly related to either that study itself or related studies. I'm not even sure if that word existed in that form before that study in 1943 was done.

As I understand it. According to that first study, they invented a way to successfully count variations in bacteria. Not individuals mind you, but groups of bacteria. Now they had a way to sort them. That's an awesome thing in itself and i have no doubt they found an endless amount of truths in those studies. Show me how a bacteria developing immunity to a virus is any different than any other living thing that does too. They admit themselves they can \"observe\" no physical change, it's the developing of resistance itself that \"proves\" their mutation theory. That too takes faith then.

[Insurrectionist]

Things in the bible that the writers could not have known but science found out later in passing centuries.

Both man and woman possess the seed of life
Genesis 3:15 17th Century
There is a place void of stars in the North
Job 26:7 19th Century
Earth is held in place by invisible forces
Job 26:7 1650
Taxonomic classification of matter
Genesis 1 1735
The Earth is round
Isaiah 40:22 15th Century
Day and night occur simultaneously on Earth
Luke 17:34 15th Century
Certain animals carry diseases harmful to man
Leviticus 11 16th Century
Early diagnosis of leprosy
Leviticus 13 17th Century
Quarantine for disease control
Leviticus 13 17th Century
Blood of animals carries diseases
Leviticus 17 17th Century
Blood is necessary for life
Leviticus 17:11 19th Century
Oceans have natural paths in them
Psalms 8:8 1854
Earth was in nebular form initially
Genesis 1:2 1911
Most seaworthy ship design ratio is 30:5:3
Genesis 6 1860
Light is a particle and has mass (a photon)
Job 38:19 1932
Radio astronomy (stars give off signals)
Job 38:7 1945
Oceans contain fresh water springs
Job 38:16 1920
Snow has material value Job 38:22
1905, 1966
Infinite number of stars exist
Genesis 15:5 1940
Dust is important to survival
Isaiah 40:12 1935
Hubert Spencer's scientific principles
Genesis 1 1820
Air has weight
Job 28:25 16th Century
Light can be split up into component colors
Job 38:24 1650
Matter is made up of invisible particles
Romans 1:20 20th Century
Plants use sunlight to manufacture food
Job 8:16 1920
Arcturus and other stars move through space
Job 38:32 19th Century
Water cycle
Ecclesiastes 1:7 17th Century
Life originated in the sea
Genesis 1 19th Century
Lightning and thunder are related
Job 38:25 19th Century
Man was the last animal created
Genesis 1 15th Century

The estimated time to when the bible written is between 1450 B.C. and 95 A.D long before any of these discoveries were made.

Why I Left Atheism

[Sergeant Thorne]

Man was the last animal created
Genesis 1 15th Century

Genesis sets the creation of man apart from the animals, so that twist won't work. It is written that man was created in the image of God. Man is a creation, but he is not an animal.

Life originated in the sea
Genesis 1 19th Century

There's nothing written in Genesis to indicate that life "originated in the sea". Very much to the contrary...

22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
...
24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so.

[dissent]

Excuse me for being skeptical, but I don't see any reason why these folks should know the things stated in your first link. It seems like a real stretch to be laying out events that theoretically take place over the course of well over 3,000,000 times the span of their own lifetime, at best. Where do they get the evidence for a theory of that magnitude?

Little be it from me to try to explain stellar evolution. Here's some links; click away -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution

Stellar evolution is the process by which a star undergoes a sequence of radical changes during its lifetime. Depending on the mass of the star, this lifetime ranges from only a few million years (for the most massive) to trillions of years (for the least massive), considerably more than the age of the universe.

Stellar evolution is not studied by observing the life of a single star, as most stellar changes occur too slowly to be detected, even over many centuries. Instead, astrophysicists come to understand how stars evolve by observing numerous stars at the various points in their life, and by simulating stellar structure with computer models.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/edu/formal/stellar_ev/

http://www.stellar-database.com/evolution.html

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/star.htm

[Insurrectionist]

There's nothing written in Genesis to indicate that life "originated in the sea". Very much to the contrary...

22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
...
24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so.

2 versus before the bible states.

king james Gen 1:20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

niv 20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

[Sergeant Thorne]

And that's an argument?

[CUDA]

Gen 1:20 is about how God created all creatures from the deepest depths of the oceans to the highest heights of the sky.

[Spidey]

Well flip, everyone here is in a tizzy about the exact same thing when it comes to climate change. That being scientific conclusions being drawn to fill a pre-conceived notion.

Double standard?

I started to look up some of those things Insurrectionist posted…I started with splitting light, well the Bible text has nothing to do with splitting light, and had to do with causing the east wind to blow, or something…and the rest bear no scientific relevance either.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Sci ... -Bible.php

Really people, when you start to use science to prove the Bible, you are treading some dangerous water, and only serve to degrade both.

Science is and should be kept separate from Religion, except in those rare cases when the union is elegant.

[Insurrectionist]

Seems kind of funny that science states that life came from the sea and crawl on to land then became what is known as man and the first life mention in the bible is God create life in the oceans. All written centuries before science came on the scene.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Never mind the fact that there is a great chasm of dissimilarity in the two ideas after you get past your initial surface (and mistaken) fascination with the Bible supposedly leaving room for the notion that life came from the sea.

(Be careful not to look too closely, or you'll spoil the magic. )

[Will Robinson]

Regarding the list of things in the bible which predates the first time those things were documented by 'scientists':
Just because something is written in the bible doesn't prove the existence of god or creation. If a scientist can record his view and explanation of evolution in a 'science' book then so could a person who believes in creation document his theories in a bible verse...

Who's to say Galileo was the first one to write the earth was round? sure he built a telescope which helps prove the theory but the theory didn't depend on the telescope.
Anyone holding an orange in his hand and pondering the sun setting behind the horizon might have had that theory for instance. Most of that list looks like common sense would lead you to those theories. \"Blood is necessary for life\"...come on! Slice a throat open and notice the mammal dies around the same time the blood stops flowing, rinse, repeat....same result every time....hmmmm I smell a theory coming!

[flip]

I think to scrutinize the bible the first place is too find absurdity. Now considering the nature of the book and making concession for \"miracles\" I would expect to find some scientific absurdities in it. Again before anybody brings up the virgin birth, making concession for things the bible itself declares is supernatural. As TC pointed out the bible never mentions dinosaurs so I don't see where either side argues that. It does talk about a behemoth and a leviathon (alligator ,elephant or anaconda who knows) I also don't believe the 6000 year formula is anything other than interpretation of a few verses and not specifically what the bible says. So coming from men who lived in the wilderness and tended sheep, I would at least expect one of them to declare the world was flat.

[Sergeant Thorne]

To \"scrutinize\" after the fashion demonstrated above is to find absurdity in anything moderately complex. There are people who have demonstrated that to scrutinize the \"absurdities\" in the Bible is to find details and truths that your average casual reader either overlooks or chalks up to inconsistency.

[flip]

No it is either the infallible Word of God or it is not. I would think if it was the words of God it could stand under any scrutiny.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Nothing can \"stand\" under the scrutiny of an opponent with a pre-determined answer in mind, who does not have the determination, character, or education to give a thorough search. Those animals you posed, for instance, were pathetic. One can easily show from the scriptures that none of them fit either description in Job. If that's as thorough as you're willing to be, then I'm sorry for you.

[flip]

Nothing can \"stand\" under the scrutiny of an opponent with a pre-determined answer in mind, who does not have the determination, character, or education to give a thorough search.

Eh anyone with an open mind and sense of self honesty is just as capable as anyone else to figure out truth. He who seeks finds, not he who asks Thorne.

Give me your list of what animal it could possibly be and I'll bet it's just as pathetic because just like me you don't know either.

Being thorough means having to stop well before the point you've gotten to.

[Will Robinson]

No it is either the infallible Word of God or it is not. I would think if it was the words of God it could stand under any scrutiny.

My guess is if it was the infallible word of God there would only be one book instead of many within its cover and it would be titled "God" instead of John, Mark, Luke, Paul, etc.
Something else just popped into my head. Considering the time and location of these events why do so many of the names sound so anglo and modern?

[flip]

LOL guesses do not fit under the category of scrutiny

[Will Robinson]

LOL guesses do not fit under the category of scrutiny

Lol, and yet if my guesses were regarding climate catastrophe it would pass peer review and I could even get a Nobel Prize for it

[Jeff250]

Interesting.

So far there's one thing I don't get, however. How could the sun not be shrinking? How on earth could it possibly be expanding? That seems to defy logic!

In terms of mass, no. In terms of volume, yes. As the hydrogen in the core is burned (via nuclear fusion) into helium, the core becomes more dense, heating it. The additional temperature heats the outside, causing it to mildly expand.

In a few billion years, the sun will expand considerably when it reaches red giant phase. At some point, all of the hydrogen in the core will be burned into helium. When this happens, the pressure from the burning hydrogen that kept the sun from collapsing in on itself will cease and it will begin contracting. However, as it contracts, its temperature will increase. Even though the hydrogen in the core is gone, there is still hydrogen in shells around the core in places that were not hot enough to originally burn it. After enough contraction, it becomes hot enough for the shells to begin burning hydrogen too. When hydrogen begins burning again, the sun becomes even hotter, causing even more hydrogen to be burnable. You have a runaway reaction, causing the outside parts of the sun to enlarge to the point of swallowing the inner planets, annihilating life on earth.

Cool, huh?

Something else just popped into my head. Considering the time and location of these events why do so many of the names sound so anglo and modern?

Part of this is the names are anglicized in translation so that English speakers can easily pronounce them. I think this explains why they seem anglo. The other is that it is still considered fashionable to give people biblical names, even in modern times, hence why the names still seem modern. They've just never really fallen out of fashion.

List of supposed scientific claims...

I think that if the Bible wanted to give us scientific insight, then there would have been an easy, straightforward way to do this. The author would have said, "Looks guys, here's some scientific insight that I will tell you about that no one will discover for a very long time." Instead, we have small blurbs from metaphors and poetry that we are being asked to interpret literally.

Not only do these passages never claim to be revealing scientific insight, people have historically never interpreted them that way. Only after the said discoveries did someone come along and try to cherry pick passages that seemed to resemble actual scientific discoveries.

This becomes an even greater practical matter when just after the poem with the supposed scientific insight is another poem mentioning the earth being stationed on pillars or having four corners. To state the problem more formally, there exists no a priori reason to think that the one poem with the supposed scientific insight should be interpreted literally but the poem mentioning the earth's pillars or corners was just a metaphor. You say that one should be interpreted literally and the other metaphorically ad hoc out of convenience for your agenda.

Most of the mentions on the list just don't pass the common sense test either. Let's, for instance, consider your first example:

"Both man and woman possess the seed of life"

Passage in question:

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (KJV)"

If you replace "thy seed and her seed" with something like "sperm and eggs," the verse no longer makes sense and in fact would seem to state something nonsensical. Yet this is the replacement that we would have to make in order for this to be some biological illumination. I would suggest that "seed" is a metaphor for progeny. I think that modern translations have the right idea:

"I will put hatred between you and the woman. Your children and her children will be enemies. Her son will crush your head. And you will crush his heel. (NIV)"

Isn't that what the verse is saying, not some sort of statement about human biology?

I believe that you'll come to similar conclusions after doing due research on the other entries in your list.

[flip]

I think it's also important to point out this is supposed to be God speaking directly to Satan after Eve sins. It's actually the first verse we have where God says he will keep a lineage to himself, now that a lineage of evil had been created. It is also the first place where it says the man coming from that line would suffer (bruise heel) but also bruise Satans head (authority). This is a pretty consistent theme throughout all the books currently in the bible.