SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Genes are slowly degraded over time due to mutations,
The law of entropy also applies to genetic information.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
All the long age dating techniques have been proven to be false as they vastly vary in measuring the age of the same thing – part 2
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
The law of entropy also applies to genetic information.
exchemist
Veteran Member
This, like much of the science you post, is false (Satan at work again?).
There are repair mechanisms in the cell that prevent accumulation of errors, and as a back-up, a self-destruct mechanism for cells in which a repair cannot be made. DNA repair - Wikipedia
So while it is of course true that cellular processes are, like everything else subject to entropy (there is no "law" of entropy by the way), that does not lead to degradation of function.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Errors happen each time with each new offspring despite the error checking band correction .
This genetic load increases all the time in every species.
Thus that sets a limit on how long life has existed and it is much less than millions of years.
exchemist
Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Satan has deceived the whole world.
And evolution is one of his biggest lies.
Astrophile
Active Member
This is an example of begging the question. You have to provide evidence that Satan exists before you can say that he is able to deceive people.
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
I haven't read the Wikipedia article yet, however, due to personal family experience with cancer, I would challenge that claim as false. I would argue that cancer is proof that is not what reliably occurs.
Update
And now I have read the Wikipedia article, I note that the failure of the repair mechanisms is usually due to environmental factors. This is consistent with the biblical model I think in that environmental change at the time of the flood onwards, has caused significant issues for us in terms of health and longevity.
Last edited:
This thread reminds me of an episode of Moral Orel.
Doughy asks Morel Puppington what he got for
one of the questions on the science test.
Moral responds...."Jesus".
Doughy asks Morel Puppington what he got for
one of the questions on the science test.
Moral responds...."Jesus".
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I did .
Now read about Satan and how. He deceives in the Bible.
Hey hey!
So i've read the first one, and it's pretty much spot on, minus in it's conclusive argument.
It's true that Helium is quite fleeting, and they found a lot of helium as a subproduct of that decay, therefore there's too much helium and it couldn't have passed all that time, or decay was greatly accelerated. Well no
The structure they analyze, Zircons, have a cristaline structure a very stable, very strong structure, if those zircons were exposed to high temperatures, that helium would have been lost, but thousands of degrees are not always present, like in this case, so nothing forced that helium out, it's not that it was accelerated nuclear decay, rather Zircons are pretty good at keeping things inside Cheers!
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Scientifically, that's not how entropy works.
When dealing with scientific evidence it's best to use actual scientific sources that are not linked to pseudo-science. It's mindboggling to me how some of those supposed "Christians" can invent and/or pass on bogus "evidence"-- but all too many do.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
It sure does.
Entropy is the destruction of order and does it to all ordered things.
Genetic load does increase in all species and puts an upper limit on the age of all living things.
And it is way less than billions or millions of years.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Actually the Catholic Church wrote most of the Bible themselves since they had complete exclusivity to the entire collection of books based on whatever fragments if any they had back in the day if any.
Nobody was even allowed to possession of the Bible unless the Catholic Church allowed it which I don't think they did for which I can only think the church prescribed appropriate punishments for such infractions.
I'm sure there were innumerable gaps in the Bible so the Catholic church just filled in by their own scribes to make it a complete collection of books.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The RCC did not write the Bible.
The RCC did not exist before the 3rd century.
The KJB is one of most anti Catholic books ever.
If the RCC wrote the Bible, why didn’t they write one that agreed with their doctrine?
The RCC does back the Big Bang, evolution and billions of years, so that also proves these false.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
After you were born, did you grow?
Think about this and then maybe apply it to our conversation.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
In one sense you're right: the Church did not use Roman until after the Great Schism. However, the 4th century Church the selected your canon is very much was the Church of Jesus and the Apostles.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Literally all your sources link to religious propaganda sites.
Try to find a single scientific source.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You could not be more wrong.
The exact opposite is true in science.
First, to "test" a hypothesis in science, one does NOT try to support ones hypothesis. Instead, one tries to show it false.
Secondly, when a scientist publishes a hypothesis, his / her peers will jump on it like hawks to try and prove it wrong.
In science, fame and glory for scientists is reserved for those scientists who show their collegues to be WRONG.
There is NO fame and glory in science for upholding the status quo.
Nobody in science has ever received a Nobel (or any other kid of award) for providing support for a model and upholding the status quo.
I would not become famous in science for conducting the bazillionth experiment that supports evolution theory.
I would, however, become famous overnight and receive a nobel and all the grand money in the world if I would manage to disprove evolution theory.
I'ld have universities, streets, statues, etc named after me.
My name would resonate through the ages just like the names Darwin, Newton, Einstein, Farraday, Feinman, etc.
This idea that scientists conspire together and actively work together to uphold the status quo is probably one of the most giant misconceptions that the anti-science / creationist crowd hold.
So much so that it bears repeating: fame and glory in science is reserved for those scientists who show their collegues to be WRONG
If there was only the SLIGHTEST possibility or hint that "all" dating mechanisms were incorrect, PLENTY of scientists would be working DAY AND NIGHT to show them wrong. It would literally be a RACE among them to be the first to manage to disprove them.
Esteban X
Active Member
There is no law of entropy, you may mean the second law of thermodynamics which only applies to closed system, which is not the case here..