The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[Subduction Zone]

You're sure that's how the first cell replicated itself? Can you please show how spheres that form natural etc go through the process using evidence that scientists provide confirming what you said before there is life please?

Szostak Lab: Research

molbio.mgh.harvard.edu

There are also links to peer reviewed articles that go into this in depth for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Talking about dating fossils and other things like inscribing on caves.

We have gone over how fossils are dated.

 

[Polymath257]

Talking about dating fossils and other things like inscribing on caves.

OK, yes. We date most fossils by dating the rocks they are in. That is usually done by some sort of radiometric dating technique.

Usually, the writing on cave walls is dated by the carbon in the charcoal they used for the writing itself.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

OK, yes. We date most fossils by dating the rocks they are in. That is usually done by some sort of radiometric dating technique.

Usually, the writing on cave walls is dated by the carbon in the charcoal they used for the writing itself.

And those dating techniques are not reliable.

 

[gnostic]

Yes -- each of the first six days of creation are said to have an evening and a morning. It does say in Genesis chapter 2, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. 3So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation." But it does not say in chapters 1 or 2 that it had an evening and a morning. Sorry that I upset you so much.

You still really do not know what you are talking about, YoursTrue.

Yes, Genesis 2:1-4, may be ON SEPARATE CHAPTER THAN THAT OF Genesis 1, but context-wise, these 4 verses are actually integral part of all the contents of Genesis 1, because oririginally there were no chapters and there were no verse divisions.

Chapters numbers didn’t exist in any ancient Hebrew texts of the Tanakh or the Christian Old Testament Bible. Chapters didn’t exist in the original Greek gospels.

These books didn’t divide into chapters until the 13th century CE, hence in the High Middle Ages.

Verse divisions into numbers didn’t start until the 16th century, hence Late Renaissance.

So for matters of convenience, I used chapter & verse numbers, when I am discussing these topics with you, but originally the 1st 4 verses of Genesis is really part of Genesis 6-day Creation, so content-wise and contextually you wouldn’t separate them as 2 chapters, when actually considered that ancient sources had no chapters or verse numbers.

because of the ways chapters and verses were created in the mid-third of the 2nd millennium CE (c 1200 - c 1500), we are stuck with false presumption that the ancient sources had chapter & verse numbers, when no such numbering system exist in ancient times.

If we were really reading the original ancient Hebrew or Greek of Genesis Creation then there would be no verse numbers to separate the verses. There would be no verse numbering if you have seen Genesis in the original sources Dead Seas Scrolls or the Greek Septuagint.

So contextually, the 7th day would follow the 6th day, and the 7th day would comprise of evening & morning like the preceding 6th day (Genesis 1:31), even when 2:2 omitted “there was evening and there was morning”.

 

[Polymath257]

And those dating techniques are not reliable.

They are when used correctly. Like all things, you can get garbage when used incorrectly.

 

[YoursTrue]

You still really do not know what you are talking about, YoursTrue.

Yes, Genesis 2:1-4, may be ON SEPARATE CHAPTER THAN THAT OF Genesis 1, but context-wise, these 4 verses are actually integral part of all the contents of Genesis 1, because oririginally there were no chapters and there were no verse divisions.

Chapters numbers didn’t exist in any ancient Hebrew texts of the Tanakh or the Christian Old Testament Bible. Chapters didn’t exist in the original Greek gospels.

These books didn’t divide into chapters until the 13th century CE, hence in the High Middle Ages.

Verse divisions into numbers didn’t start until the 16th century, hence Late Renaissance.

So for matters of convenience, I used chapter & verse numbers, when I am discussing these topics with you, but originally the 1st 4 verses of Genesis is really part of Genesis 6-day Creation, so content-wise and contextually you wouldn’t separate them as 2 chapters, when actually considered that ancient sources had no chapters or verse numbers.

because of the ways chapters and verses were created in the mid-third of the 2nd millennium CE (c 1200 - c 1500), we are stuck with false presumption that the ancient sources had chapter & verse numbers, when no such numbering system exist in ancient times.

If we were really reading the original ancient Hebrew or Greek of Genesis Creation then there would be no verse numbers to separate the verses. There would be no verse numbering if you have seen Genesis in the original sources Dead Seas Scrolls or the Greek Septuagint.

So contextually, the 7th day would follow the 6th day, and the 7th day would comprise of evening & morning like the preceding 6th day (Genesis 1:31), even when 2:2 omitted “there was evening and there was morning”.

Thank you for saying that yes,the 7th day is not assigned evening and morning. Right now that is where I stop possibly until another time.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have no idea what that 1st sentence means. I do understand the passive aggressive dismissal in the 2nd sentence.

Be good for goodness sake.

You said, I believe, may Santa be good to me. Therefore I'm figuring you believe in Santa. (Have a good one, and for goodness' sake)

 

[YoursTrue]

They are when used correctly. Like all things, you can get garbage when used incorrectly.

I'd have to understand all these things like dating techniques, which scientists used a particular technique, on what, in order for me to say "Oh, yes...homo sapiens are 300,000+ years old so far."

 

[YoursTrue]

They are when used correctly. Like all things, you can get garbage when used incorrectly.

I learned a while back that some things I learned in school and now in a book by Hawking and Mlodinow has been altered to meet current evaluations. Therefore, something(s) were incorrect. Time and science, I suppose, marches on. ?

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, your argument of breaking the law, is ridiculous, when they were created, they were created without knowing right and wrong, because according to the story, the only way to know right from wrong is to eat from the tree of knowledge.

So you really cannot expect them to know if God or the serpent is telling the truth, if they haven't eaten the fruit.

It would seem the story of Adam and Eve was in a no-win situation...especially when God put the Tree in middle of Eden. It would seem that God wanted them to fail.

If God truly didn't want them to take the fruit then couldn't God place the angel with the sword to guard the Tree?

Not everybody interprets as you do, gnostic. God told them right from wrong, in the absolute sense. Listen to God, that's right. Don't listen in the sense to obey Him, that's wrong. Also brought out by the Mosaic Law as well.

 

[YoursTrue]

it doesn’t say anything about each day being 24 hours, but it summed up each day being comprised of “evening and morning“.

And even though it say nothing about “evening and morning“, it does say the 7th day followed the 6th day, so it is safe to assume the 7th day would also comprised of an “evening” & a “morning”. In the Jewish calendar and custom, is that each new day starts at the beginning of the evening, not at midnight.

the day don’t comprise of years, centuries or ”a thousand of years”.

beside that the Genesis 1 and 2:1-4, is not really history of the earth, but just allegory for the law of sabbath, the day of rest, in Exodus 16.

But neither Genesis 1 creation, nor Genesis 2, are science or history, especially when these two myths contradict each other in the order of creation:

• While Genesis 1 say humans were created last, after the creation of vegetation, after fishes & birds and after land animals.
• Genesis 2 say human was created before vegetation and before animals.

The inconsistencies of the order of creations, showed that they were written by 2 different groups of people.
I
plus saying the Earth was created before the sun, revealed that people who wrote that have no understanding about about nature, especially that the birds fly in the same ”firmament of the heaven” or the “sky”, as the sun and moon.

Re-reading your comment again -- it is safe to assume that because all six days had an opening (evening) and a close (morning) but the seventh day did not==the seventh day was different from the other six days. We know from the Bible that God rested on the seventh day from all His creative works. Genesis chapter 2 says referring to this: "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. 2And by the seventh day God had finished the work He had been doing; so on that day He rested from all His work.
3Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on that day He rested from all the work of creation that He had accomplished."
So the seventh day was different obviously from the first six days when the heavens and the earth were created.
I'm sure you would agree with that, hopefully.

 

[gnostic]

In some cases I have read about, the age notation of writing and human fossils is strongly linked to rocks.

Even though have addressed this to @Polymath257 , I will reply that once again, just as you don’t understand the original sources of Genesis have no chapter and verse numbers, you also still don’t understand the processes involved in fossilisation.

yes, you would date the rocks that contained the fossils.

But the bodies or remains of humans and of animals were under rocks, they were buried under sands or soils or under mud (soils that have been excessively wet by water (eg soil turning into mud by rain, streams, lake or by the seawater).

Sand, soils and mud are not rocks, and it would take some time for them to turn into rocks, particularly sedimentary rocks.

With igneous rocks, they are formed when the magma (which are molten rocks, rocks that have been either partially or fully melted) cooled, thereby solidifying and hardening. If the magma cooled as lava by water or by the Earth’s atmosphere, then these igneous rocks are referred to as extrusive igneous rocks. Magma that cooled in the subterranean, eg in the magma chamber, these are referred to

Sedimentary rock, on the other hand are made from minerals that have WEATHERED from rocks. The weathering process, break down rocks into smaller pieces and into minerals, over time, by water (rain, river current, tides, etc), by ice (eg hail, glaciers, etc), and by winds that carry debris (eg sand, dust storm, etc). The Sun radiation would also weaken the rocks.

lot of these minerals that have “weathered” from rocks, become deposits of sediments that eventually turn into soil. The most common minerals from weathering of rocks, are feldspar, quartz and mica, and these minerals are found in certain types of soil (eg sandy soil, silt & clay).

you will have to understand that soil comprised of two main layers - topsoil & subsoil.

topsoil are more porous than subsoil, because gravity and the weights of rocks and topsoils, put pressure on the subsoil below, thereby compacting the subsoil until they are less porous, so there are less gases and water in subsoil than on the more porous topsoil.

if erosion don’t occur, than over time, new layer of soil are top of the existing pre-existing topsoil, which will become the new subsoil.

The reasons I am telling this, is that bodies of animals and humans are usually buried under soil or mud, not by lava.

As you know, lava are hot molten rocks, the heat would often destroy the remains of animals and humans.

So mud and soil.

For in order to turn sediment of mud or soil into rocks, the minerals needs to mould around the skeletal remains or exoskeletal remains or shells. In permineralisation, water needs to bring the minerals inside the hollow or cavities of bones that used to contain bone marrow.

It is these minerals that would over time, turn into rocks, sedimentary rocks, AND it is the minerals that would eventually turn bones, or exoskeletons, or shells, or teeth, into fossils.

It will take more than 10,000 years for layers of sediments into sedimentary rocks.

i am quite sure I have told you before, YoursTrue. There are no fossils less than 10,000 years old.

In the Holocene, you will either find human remains as -

• bones, not fossil, eg the Cheddar Man discovered in Gough’s Cave, Cheddar Gorge, Somerset, and he has been dated to about 10,500 years ago (c 8500 BCE):
• again, bones, not fossils, eg the La Brea Woman, a paleo-Indian woman, whose bones were found in La Brea Tar Pits, Los Angeles. Her remains have been dated to 10,300 years ago.
• or mummified bodies, eg the Ötzi, 5300 years old, found at one of the mountains of the Ötital Alps (Austrian-Italian border), you would probably remember him more famously as the “Iceman”, discovered in 1991. It was naturally mummified by the ice. So mummy, not fossil.

Just because remains get buried, it doesn’t become fossils. There are no guarantees as to what remains will become fossils.

To give you another example, but this time the example will before Holocene and before the Neolithic period. The Minatogawa Man, in Upper Palaeolithic Okinawa, Japan, has been dated to 24,000 years ago, or 22,000 BCE. Like the Cheddar Man, these skeletal remains (4 skeletons) are bones, not fossils. despite being older than Cheddar Man. Fossilisation didn’t occur because these skeletons weren’t buried in the right conditions (they were found buried in limestone quarry).

So if your Genesis Flood, occurred at some points between 4500 and 4100 years ago, then no ”fossils” could exist, because it is too short a time for fossilisation to occur.

some stupid creationists, like Ken Ham for instance, is a Young Earth Creation creationist, and he actually believed that dinosaurs like the Tyrannosaurus walked the Earth with Adam, and became extinct by the Flood. He has no understanding that dinosaur fossils can not even be possible in less than 4500 years.

As I said earlier, minerals will take some times to turn into sedimentar rocks, and it will take about the same turned mineralised bones into fossils.

 

[gnostic]

Re-reading your comment again -- it is safe to assume that because all six days had an opening (evening) and a close (morning) but the seventh day did not==the seventh day was different from the other six days.

That just interpretation, your assumption with no basis that 7th day lasted longer than evening & morning.

nothing in Genesis 2:2 say it lasted for a week, month, a year, a century or a millennium. You are making up if you think a day is more than evening & morning.

I’m fed up explaining to you the concept of keeping the context as original possible. You are the one who’s distorting Genesis, not me.

If you want to twist the Genesis 2:2 to more than a period of a day, then be my guest, because you are only giving another reason why i think you are the 2nd most illogical and unscientific person. It will also give more reasons to doubt the validity of Genesis Creation - more reason to think that the Creation is another unnatural and unrealistic myth, like every other creation myths.

 

[YoursTrue]

OK, yes. We date most fossils by dating the rocks they are in. That is usually done by some sort of radiometric dating technique.

Usually, the writing on cave walls is dated by the carbon in the charcoal they used for the writing itself.

Thank you. I guess maybe I'm not that stupid after all. (More to follow, maybe, I suppose.)

 

[YoursTrue]

That just interpretation, your assumption with no basis that 7th day lasted longer than evening & morning.

nothing in Genesis 2:2 say it lasted for a week, month, a year, a century or a millennium. You are making up if you think a day is more than evening & morning.

I’m fed up explaining to you the concept of keeping the context as original possible. You are the one who’s distorting Genesis, not me.

If you want to twist the Genesis 2:2 to more than a period of a day, then be my guest, because you are only giving another reason why i think you are the 2nd most illogical and unscientific person. It will also give more reasons to doubt the validity of Genesis Creation - more reason to think that the Creation is another unnatural and unrealistic myth, like every other creation myths.

They were all -- DAYS. You can be fed up but this tells me you have a not-so-good temper and way of coping with things. Anyway, since I find the subject interesting, I will simply say that they are all termed as -- days. (Not years and not centuries and not hours. Although I have learned that a day of Venus is hundreds of earth days long. Quite interesting.) So let there be peace for a while at least. If possible.

 

[YoursTrue]

That just interpretation, your assumption with no basis that 7th day lasted longer than evening & morning.

nothing in Genesis 2:2 say it lasted for a week, month, a year, a century or a millennium. You are making up if you think a day is more than evening & morning.

I’m fed up explaining to you the concept of keeping the context as original possible. You are the one who’s distorting Genesis, not me.

If you want to twist the Genesis 2:2 to more than a period of a day, then be my guest, because you are only giving another reason why i think you are the 2nd most illogical and unscientific person. It will also give more reasons to doubt the validity of Genesis Creation - more reason to think that the Creation is another unnatural and unrealistic myth, like every other creation myths.

P.S. What makes you think that I think the 7th day does not have an "evening and a morning"? I never said that. And neither does the Bible. The first six days are said to have an evening and a morning. Not -- the seventh day. Sorry. So do me a favor and stop making things up. I'm surprised at you since I thought you were more peaceable than how you are coming across now. Calm down.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thank you. I guess maybe I'm not that stupid after all. (More to follow, maybe, I suppose.)

I do not consider you stupid. You are reasonably literate and educated.

The problem is you are intentionally and selectively ignorant concerning science based on an ancient tribal agenda

Today there ae multiple ways of dating fossils and rock formations, Most often two or more independent dating methods are used for dating. Some straight forward and simple like the following: You have 100,000 lake varves below a lake today. Each varve represents one year with a spring pollen layer. You want to date the layer number 5,000 with a fossil animal. You compare the obvious with Carbon 24 dating of the animal and you come up with a date of ~5,000 years old.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, now you tagged me mentally. So can scientists explain how the first cell duplicated itself?

Cell division is a pretty well-known phenomenon. Unless there was some evidence to think otherwise, I would expect it would have quickly evolved to what we see occurring with bacteria. It's possible it may have started through some unknown mechanism that was not sustained long by selection. More than likely though, it resulted from the advantages of budding and cleavage of natural membrane structures as @Polymath257 and @Subduction Zone have noted. This is very much a basic description of what occurs with the cell membrane in bacterial cell division. But there is no way to really know the exact details. That does not mean it did not happen, evolve or that not knowing those details means cells don't divide. The latter notion is an extension of the ridiculous logic behind this entire series of pointless threads.

Being a highly conserved essential, cell division is a fundamental feature that is logical to consider having a very early development. And all indications are that it existed prior to the first living things. It is through that division that cells grow, multiply and heritable variation enters a population. Without that variation, evolution would not occur and life would likely have ceased shortly after the first major changes in the environment that negatively effected the population.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sure.

Let's do the classic analogy of ants moving around on an expanding sphere. This is analogous to galaxies moving in an expanding universe. The motion of the ants *on* the sphere is called the peculiar motion. For galaxies, this is due to, for example, the gravitational forces between nearby galaxies. You may have heard that the Milky Way galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy are going to collide in a few billion years. This is due to the peculiar motion of the two galaxies.

The Hubble Flow, in this analogy, corresponds to the motion of the ants due to the overall expansion of the sphere. It represents the motion between galaxies because of the overall expansion of the universe, as opposed to the smaller scale peculiar motion.

In the early days of cosmology, the attempts to measure the Hubble parameter (which gives the relation between distance and velocity of motion away for galaxies) was complicated because we could only get good distance measurements for 'nearby' galaxies and the peculiar motion was large enough compared the the Hubble flow that the estimates had very large error bars.

This is related to the next topic.



I would say that JWST measurements make the estimates more *un*certain.

The problem seems to be that low estimates for the Hubble parameter (around 67 km/sec/mPar) are those obtained from the background radiation and the higher estimates (around 73 km/sec/mPar) are those obtained by using the distance ladder to estimate distances to distant galaxies.

Which is correct? Nobody knows.

The tension was first seen about 5 years ago and there is active research being done to figure out what is going on. The wikipedia article on this is fairly good and covers the values obtained this century.

That said, I find it somewhat funny that a 10% difference is seen as large when 50 years ago the estimates for the parameter were 'somewhere between 50 and 100' with debate very heated between the two camps. That a 10% difference is considered significant is a testimony to how accurate cosmology has become over the last 20 years or so.

My personal guess is that the distance ladder estimates are off. The CMBR estimates seem more fundamental and less likely to have cascading error bars. But there is also a possibility of new physics (an equation of state for dark energy is perhaps the most likely of these).

Given that this tension has only been around for 5 years, I would wait until JWST (for distance ladder estimates) and other sources (for CMBR estimates) have opportunity to collect more data.

Since the difference is small (although statistically significant), this has almost no conseque3nces for the overall age of the universe. We are still talking about somewhere in the 13-14 billion year range either way.

I don't think I told you thanks for explaining this. Thank you, it was very helpful. Especially the analogy with ants on a sphere. Good choice for explaining something to me.