Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is some evidence that the earth at one time had increased oxygen levels which is one explanation for the increased life spans in the biblical times. Other theories to consider are increased nutrients in food (no cardboard tasting tomatoes); and less radiation due to dense canopy.

From Genesis Park Website

Another interesting feature of the early earth atmosphere was enhanced oxygen. "The Earth’s atmosphere 80 million years ago contained 50 per cent more oxygen than it does now, according to an analysis of microscopic air bubbles trapped in fossilized tree resin. The implications of the discovery - if confirmed by more experiments - are enormous. One implication is that the atmospheric pressure of the Earth would have been much greater during the Cretaceous era, when the bubbles formed in the resin. A dense atmosphere could also explain how the ungainly pterosaur, with its stubby body and wing span of up to 11 meters, could have stayed airborne, he said. The spread of angiosperms, flowering plants, during the Cretaceous era could have caused the high oxygen levels reported by Berner and Landis, scientists said last week." (Anderson, Ian, "Dinosaurs Breathed Air Rich in Oxygen," New Scientist, vol. 116, p. 25. Cited in The Modern Creation Trilogy by Morris) Some have even suggested that without such an atmosphere the relatively small lung capacity in certain dinosaurs could not have supplied their massive tissue with the needed oxygen.

Other interesting feature of the early earth atmosphere was enhanced oxygen and a denser atmosphere. Robert Berner of Yale and Gary Landis of the U.S. Geological Survey analyzed air bubbles that are believed to have been trapped in amber some 80 million years ago. "The researchers clamped the amber into a vacuum chamber of a quadrupole mass spectrometer, a device that identifies the chemical composition of a substance. As the machine slowly crushed the sample, the microscopic bubbles were released, exhaling up to 100 billion molecules. These breaths disclosed some surprising evidence: the ancient air contained 50 percent more oxygen than the air today."

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/flood/flood.htm
 
Last edited:
Doc, is this true. My bible has the earth at only 4000 years old. Is the bible wrong ?

Shhh! You're not supposed to notice that DOC contradicts himself.

He's losing his touch. He should have just posted the last two sentences and hope we didn't notice.
.
 
Last edited:
Everyone has a right to their opinion/belief. You have your opinion/belief, and 2 billion Christians have their opinon/beliefs.

How many times have people told you that appeal to popular belief is a logical fallacy? Do you even know what a logical fallacy is? Do you know what logic is? Do you have an education at all?
 
Doc, is this true. My bible has the earth at only 4000 years old. Is the bible wrong ?

Hah! Snarky.

Here is some evidence...

Hahaha. DOC made a funny.

A dense atmosphere could also explain how the ungainly pterosaur, with its stubby body and wing span of up to 11 meters, could have stayed airborne, he said.

Right, it couldn't be due to the 33 foot wingspan. :rolleyes:

The spread of angiosperms, flowering plants, during the Cretaceous era...

But DOC, if the flood explains geology, why don't we find angiosperms or even pollen in any strata earlier than the Cretaceous? In Genesis we read that there was fruit - a byproduct of flower production - in the Garden of Eden so clearly flowering plants existed before the Flood. Why don't we ever find flowering plants or pollen in layers earlier than the Cretaceous?

Other interesting feature of the early earth atmosphere was enhanced oxygen and a denser atmosphere. Robert Berner of Yale and Gary Landis of the U.S. Geological Survey analyzed air bubbles that are believed to have been trapped in amber some 80 million years ago. "The researchers clamped the amber into a vacuum chamber of a quadrupole mass spectrometer, a device that identifies the chemical composition of a substance. As the machine slowly crushed the sample, the microscopic bubbles were released, exhaling up to 100 billion molecules. These breaths disclosed some surprising evidence: the ancient air contained 50 percent more oxygen than the air today."

I can't this morning (and perhaps someone with more time and bandwidth than I have will do so), but I can't wait to check out this paper on Google Scholar and see if it's anywhere near suggesting what "genesispark.com" is trying to say it does.
 
Here is some evidence that the earth at one time had increased oxygen levels which is one explanation for the increased life spans in the biblical times.
DOC, this sentence is completely false. Elevated oxygen (hyperoxia) is likely to DECREASE life spans of humans, not increase it. This is based upon the oxidative stress hypothesis of aging.

Examples include
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Oct 14;94(21):11168-72.
abstract said:
...Experimental manipulations which decrease aconitase activity should therefore cause a decrease in life-span. This expected decrease was observed when flies were exposed to hyperoxia, which oxidizes aconitase, and when they were given fluoroacetate, an inhibitor of aconitase. ...

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Dec 6;91(25):12332-5.
abstract said:
The objective of this study was to explore the relationship between oxidative molecular damage and the aging process by determining whether such damage is associated with the rate of aging, using the adult housefly as the experimental organism. Because the somatic tissues in the housefly consist of long-lived postmitotic cells, it provides an excellent model system for studying cumulative age-related cellular alterations. Rate of aging in the housefly was manipulated by varying the rate of metabolism (physical activity). The concentration of 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine (80HdG) was used as an indicator of DNA oxidation. Exposure of live flies to x-rays and hyperoxia elevated the level of 8OHdG. The level of 8OHdG in mitochondrial as well as total DNA increased with the age of flies. Mitochondrial DNA was 3 times more susceptible to age-related oxidative damage than nuclear DNA. A decrease in the level of physical activity of the flies was found to prolong the life-span and corresponding reduce the level of 8OHdG in both mitochondrial and total DNA. Under all conditions examined, mitochondrial DNA exhibited a higher level of oxidative damage than total DNA. The 8OHdG levels were found to be inversely associated with the life expectancy of houseflies. The pattern of age-associated accrural of 8OHdG was virtually identical to that of protein carbonyl content. Altoghether, results of this study support the hypothesis that oxidative molecular damage is a causal factor in senescence.


DOC, not even this part of your just-so story is correct. Perhaps you'd like to admit that you presented flawed information?
 
Last edited:
Google Scholar: Results 1 - 10 of about 12 for Berner Yale Landis Geological Survey amber

Google Scholar: Results 1 - 10 of about 3,840 for amber oxygen bubbles

Smithsonian/NASA ADS Physics Abstract Service

Title:
Gas Bubbles in Fossil Amber as Possible Indicators of the Major Gas Composition of Ancient Air
Authors:
Berner, Robert A.; Landis, Gary P.
Publication:
Science, Volume 239, Issue 4846, pp. 1406-1409
Publication Date:
03/1988

Abstract
Gases trapped in Miocene to Upper Cretaceous amber were released by gently crushing the amber under vacuum and were analyzed by quadrupole mass spectrometry.

After discounting the possibility that the major gases N2, O2, and CO2 underwent appreciable diffusion and diagenetic exchange with their surroundings or reaction with the amber, it has been concluded that in primary bubbles (gas released during initial breakage) these gases represent mainly original ancient air modified by the aerobic respiration of microorganisms.

Values of N2/(CO2 + O2) for each time period give consistent results despite varying O2/CO2 ratios that presumably were due to varying degrees of respiration.

This allows calculation of original oxygen concentrations, which, on the basis of these preliminary results, appear to have changed from greater than 30 percent O2 during one part of the Late Cretaceous (between 75 and 95 million years ago) to 21 percent during the Eocene-Oligocene and for present-day samples, with possibly lower values during the Oligocene-Early Miocene.

Variable O2 levels over time in general confirm theoretical isotope-mass balance calculations and suggest that the atmosphere has evolved over Phanerozoic time.

Similar version at sciencemag.org:
Gas Bubbles in Fossil Amber as Possible Indicators of the Major Gas Composition of Ancient Air


Contrast with:

nature.com Letters to Nature: Nature 339, 695 - 696 (29 June 1989); doi:10.1038/339695a0

Does the gas content of amber reveal the composition of palaeoatmospheres?

Thure E. Cerling*

Isotope Laboratory, Geological Research Division A-020, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California 92093, USA
*Present address: Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA.


WHAT does the gas content of amber indicate?

It has been suggested that bubbles in amber preserve the composition of the atmosphere at the time the amber was exuded from trees1,2, while others suggest that the gas content is controlled by solubility relationships3, diffusion4 or chemical reactions involving oxygen consumption5.

Here I describe a combined study of nitrogen, argon and oxygen in amber which makes it possible to distinguish bubble gas from matrix gas in amber by considering N2/Ar and O2/Ar ratios of the first gas released during the crushing of individual amber samples.

Crushing experiments do not indicate high oxygen levels in Cretaceous amber as have been recently reported1.

Neither Baltic nor Cretaceous amber has even the amount of oxygen expected for equilibration with the modern atmosphere.

Successive crushings of individual amber pieces show that the first crush has the highest oxygen content and that both bubble and matrix oxygen is consumed as crushing continues.

These results suggest that the oxygen content of amber does not have a bearing on the composition of the palaeoatmosphere.
 
Look stupid, I have cable and check out "Keeping up with the Kardashians" on E! if I'm in the mood. That doesn't mean that the show isn't a waste of bandwidth... just as your threads are. I just check all things out to see if they're entertaining.


I have also checked out "Keeping up with the Kardashians", just to see the boobs. The main difference here is this thread has just one boob.
 
six7s, thank you sir. :)

I have also checked out "Keeping up with the Kardashians", just to see the boobs. The main difference here is this thread has just one boob.

And similarly I refer to that show as "Throwing up with the Kardashians" while this and similar DOC threads actually make me sick.
 
Doc, is this true. My bible has the earth at only 4000 years old. Is the bible wrong ?

I never said I was a young earth creationist. Personally, I don't care if the earth is 6000 years old or 6 billion years old. I believe God created it just like some people in this thread believe some weird energy that doesn't exist now (and nobody knows where it came from) somehow changed into enough matter to make 10 billion trillion stars 14 billion years ago. You can read the facts and have your beliefs, and I can read the facts and have my beliefs.

But I have evidence that God and Christianity changes people lives for the better (for example getting people off drugs and other addictions) and I have yet to see any evidence that the Big Bang theory has ever gotten a single person off drugs or substantially improved their life.
 
Last edited:
I never said I was a young earth creationist. Personally, I don't care if the earth is 6000 years old or 6 billion years old. I believe God created it just like some people in this thread believe some weird energy that doesn't exist now (and nobody knows where it came from) somehow changed into enough matter to make 10 billion trillion stars 14 billion years ago. You can read the facts and have your beliefs, and I can read the facts and have my beliefs.
Inded but for once we appear to have the same belief. The bible is wrong on the age of the earth, makes you wonder whether the rest is right doesn't it?

But I have evidence that God and Christianity changes people lives for the better (for example getting people off drugs and other addictions) and I have yet to see any evidence that the Big Bang theory has ever gotten a single person off drugs or substantially improved their life.
Doc, you must troll in so many places that you lose track ? You have already had this argument debunked in this thread.
 
But I have evidence that God and Christianity changes people lives for the better (for example getting people off drugs and other addictions) and I have yet to see any evidence that the Big Bang theory has ever gotten a single person off drugs or substantially improved their life.

This is a fair point. I have evidence that the Bible (in my house) has helped improve my life by squashing an annoying fly. When did the Big Bang theory kill any insects, huh?
 
Doc, you must troll in so many places that you lose track ? You have already had this argument debunked in this thread.

For someone who thinks I'm a troll, you certainly spend a lot of time reading and posting in my threads. Personally I think its is hypocritical to publicly call someone a troll and then continue to read and post in their threads.

And what was the exact post number where the argument was debunked.
 
Last edited:
Non-sequitor.

Indeed. DOC's rant about his so-called evidence does not follow... but then nor does any of DOC's logic... so, in a curious twist, it does :p

:headasplodes:



I believe God created it just like some people in this thread believe some weird energy that doesn't exist now (and nobody knows where it came from) somehow changed into enough matter to make 10 billion trillion stars 14 billion years ago

@DOC,
You are simply and illogically making an 'Argument from personal incredulity'

<aside> 70 sextillion is the current accepted guesstimate</aside>

You can read the facts and have your beliefs, and I can read the facts and have my beliefs

It says a lot about your beliefs that you can so readily admit that you aren't interested in facts

However, as you know, this thread is on forums.randi.org - where critical thinking begets critical thinking and those who promote unsubstantiated woo fool no-one other than ignorant fools

But I have evidence that God and Christianity changes people lives for the better

Really? If so, please feel free to post some excepts... N.B. copying and posting 'begatted woo' is only evidence of your ignorance, not your god

I have yet to see any evidence that the Big Bang theory has

And you won't. Or if you do, consider the claimant is as ignorant as you are now
 
Last edited:
But I have evidence that God and Christianity changes people lives for the better (for example getting people off drugs and other addictions) and I have yet to see any evidence that the Big Bang theory has ever gotten a single person off drugs or substantially improved their life.

This is such an absurd statement i do not know why i am bothering...

The description of creation in Genesis is not responsible for getting individuals off drugs, just as the big bang theory is not responsible for getting people off drugs or improving their lives.

The big bang theory is merely a description of the begining of our universe, it is not comparable to a religion.

There are many people who have straightened out their lives, kicked their drug habit and become Muslims. How do you know your christianity is correct over Islam, or any other religion that has helped people lives for that matter?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by DOC
I never said I was a young earth creationist.


So you don't believe every implication of the bible?

I believe Moses (who is believed to have written Genesis) was closer to God than anyone on planet earth at the time of his existence. And I believe that he was given partial revelation by God into the beginning of the universe in a manner that could convey to the people (of the time) how the universe was created in a way "they could understand" considering they we're illiterate. But Moses didn't have complete revelation. If Moses or any one else had complete revelation then Christ would have never needed to come.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3103981#post3103981
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom