Jump to content


Photo

Effects Of Continued Belief Of "evolution" On The Brain

INSANITY FAIRY TALE ABIODARWINISM MENTAL ILLNESS FANTASY DELUSION

  • Please log in to reply
240 replies to this topic

#101 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 22 June 2016 - 02:37 AM

 

"The Mindless popping into existence of the MOST COMPLEX ENTITY OF ALL which then

miraculously WISHED the entire universe into existence"
 
No No No...  Lets correct it for you..
 
An intelligent mind created the universe and all of the physical laws as well in order to allow for temporary housing of spirits and give them the opportunity to either
seek out their creator or reject him..
The same particular creative mind already had legions of robotic angelic beings at his disposal, But was interested in giving billions of embodied spirits Free Will in
order to have meaningful relationships with them.. No Robots allowed... Only genuine meaningful love..
 
Being that THAT intelligent mind created the time, space, and matter continuum that mortal man (Embodied spirits) are subject to, He is not SUBJECT to its laws..
 
Since he is not Subject to the restriction of "Time" he is not limited by its restrictions like "Beginning" or "End"  That is why Jesus said, "I am the alpha and the Omega"
and "Before Abraham was born I AM !"  (Not "I Was") so "Popping into existence" isn't part of the equation.. If you want to insert the word "Wished" instead of "Created"
that's OK.. but the universe DID NOT EXIST... But NOW IT DOES... So creationists believe that the causation was that Intelligent mind instead of the Atheistic position//
of In the beginning "Nothing"   you see, Creationists don't think that "Nothing" can really create anything....  

I'm so happy that you quoted my entire post, proving my point even further. :)



#102 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 533 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 22 June 2016 - 04:02 PM

Fine. How about Mike Summer's two other points: testable and repeatable?

What about scientific?

 

 

I created this post and almot 3,000 others. Is that observable,  testable and repeatable enough to be conidered scientific

 

Do you really mean that you writing a post is a repetition of the divine creation as described in Genesis 1 and 2?



#103 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 533 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 22 June 2016 - 04:07 PM

It's quite obvious Driewerf, Mike (Summers) meant that God and the angels saw the creation. But I obviously meant that we did not see it in the present. Just like we did not see Leonardo Davinci paint the Mona Lisa.

 

You guys are always trying to divide and conquer. :rolleyes:

Mike Summer wrote that the creation act is observable -- present continuous. Not "has been observed". Since his answered referred to "has been observed", by non existing entities, I am not satisfied by his answer. Your answer, in post 90 is honest and clear.

 

As for my purpose in posting both yours and Mike Summer' answer side by side: I didn't want, and still don't want to divide and conquer. On the contrary, I want a christian answer as clear as possible. I want to unite you!



#104 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 22 June 2016 - 10:53 PM

And the analogy used in the OP of the frog turning into a prince (or something similar) to explain ToE has no flaw in it whatsoever. :rolleyes:

 

1. While evolution isn't being controlled by a mind, in my experience such usage to describe evolution is an allusion to randomness, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of ToE. And yes the OP used mindless to describe evolution. As Mike the Wiz would say it is an epithet.

 

Also in Blitz's post #76 he states "I mean, how can I take advice from someone who believes that in the beginning Nothing Exploded and Created all of the matter in the known universe, THEN that random matter that came from nothing randomly assembled itself into all of the chemicals listed on our periodic table, THEN those chemicals randomly assembled themselves into DNA that randomly". - So it does appear to have been an allusion to such a misunderstanding after all.

 

2. Doesn't this go against the fundamental motif of ID? In order to get things such as planes and cars, which are complex in their own right, you need an even more complex creator: humans. The universe is many fold more complex, thus the designer ought to be so complex we cannot properly comprehend how complex this entity must be. IOW things go from complex to simple, not simple to complex, according to ID as I understand it. Also I have heard many creationists, including Calypsis, say that God must be more complex than we can imagine.

 

3. True (God is eternal with no beginning or end), but then again Blitz said in post #76 "I mean, how can I take advice from someone who believes that in the beginning Nothing Exploded" - the big bang was not an explosion and I think it is fair to call such delineation an epithet. It certainly isn't a correct framing of such matters, especially for one who claims to be familiar with the subject.

 

Fjuris text just make me wonder if he understand theism. It has nothing to do if the analogy used in the OP is good or bad. I guess he tries to show us how bad he thinks Blitz's post is. But the problem is that there are fundamental differences between creation and evolution due to the different worldviews at work. So Fjuri can't just swap creation for evolution and think he's proven something. So does Fjuri understand the basics of the theistic worldview? Or is it some kind of effects that continued belief of "evolution" do to his brains that he must defend "evolution" against things he doesn't understand? But just to answer shortly on what you wrote: 
 
1. While evolution is not entirely random (natural selection) it's still a stochastic process. Or more accurately it's a stochastic optimizing process (see evolutionary algorithms). But abiogenesis (on the other hand) is random, so saying that chemicals randomly assembled themselves into DNA seems to be correct if we are talking about abiogenesis. And yes mindless is an epithet of "evolution", but it's not an epithet of a creative process. So why use it?
 
2. Nope. Try to understand what complex actually means. Usually it means that something is composed of many interconnected parts. And according to theism God is not composed of any parts. According to the classical theism of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and their adherents, God is radically unlike creatures in that he is devoid of any complexity or composition, whether physical or metaphysical. God might have complex thoughts, but God is not complex.
 
3. Why is Fjuri using the term "popping into existence" in the first part, when it has no relevance to creationism?
 
I'm just trying to understand why Fjuri wrote as he did, and I haven't figured that out yet  :unsure:


#105 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 22 June 2016 - 11:54 PM

 

Fjuris text just make me wonder if he understand theism. It has nothing to do if the analogy used in the OP is good or bad. I guess he tries to show us how bad he thinks Blitz's post is. But the problem is that there are fundamental differences between creation and evolution due to the different worldviews at work. So Fjuri can't just swap creation for evolution and think he's proven something. So does Fjuri understand the basics of the theistic worldview? Or is it some kind of effects that continued belief of "evolution" do to his brains that he must defend "evolution" against things he doesn't understand? But just to answer shortly on what you wrote: 
 
1. While evolution is not entirely random (natural selection) it's still a stochastic process. Or more accurately it's a stochastic optimizing process (see evolutionary algorithms). But abiogenesis (on the other hand) is random, so saying that chemicals randomly assembled themselves into DNA seems to be correct if we are talking about abiogenesis. And yes mindless is an epithet of "evolution", but it's not an epithet of a creative process. So why use it?
 
2. Nope. Try to understand what complex actually means. Usually it means that something is composed of many interconnected parts. And according to theism God is not composed of any parts. According to the classical theism of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and their adherents, God is radically unlike creatures in that he is devoid of any complexity or composition, whether physical or metaphysical. God might have complex thoughts, but God is not complex.
 
3. Why is Fjuri using the term "popping into existence" in the first part, when it has no relevance to creationism?
 
I'm just trying to understand why Fjuri wrote as he did, and I haven't figured that out yet  :unsure:

 

Since this was in white and only intended for those you as I figured you were actually reading the post:
 
Of course it is not as good a caricature of your position as the OP did when he made his. That is because when I meet someone who has a different point of view on a certain something, I expect that despite how illogical I find that position there must be "good" reasons for that someone to belief that. Causes of believing something wrong are ignorance (lack of education), only being confronted with a certain point of view, ... My forte and weakness is that I find it easy to understand to logic someone has for a certain line of reasoning. That unfortunately means I'm also not as good at ridiculing others as some people are.
I belief things, you belief things. We all have our reasons. I have my background, you have yours. Its illogical to expect the same conclusions to be made in all matters.
 
What I demonstrated rather successfully (imho) was that the tone and content of that post is nothing but trolling. Unless you would admit that you are just being a drama-queen.
- Blitz is not representing our position
- Blitz is linking us to mental illness, insanity, ... 
- Blitz is refusing to support his claims
 
I apologize to anyone if they were offended by that post (and the first part of this one). It was not my intention to insult, but to show behavior which shouldn't be condoned.
 
I give you the chance to apologize for what you wrote as well.


#106 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 23 June 2016 - 02:46 AM

 

Since this was in white and only intended for those you as I figured you were actually reading the post:
 
Of course it is not as good a caricature of your position as the OP did when he made his. That is because when I meet someone who has a different point of view on a certain something, I expect that despite how illogical I find that position there must be "good" reasons for that someone to belief that. Causes of believing something wrong are ignorance (lack of education), only being confronted with a certain point of view, ... My forte and weakness is that I find it easy to understand to logic someone has for a certain line of reasoning. That unfortunately means I'm also not as good at ridiculing others as some people are.
I belief things, you belief things. We all have our reasons. I have my background, you have yours. Its illogical to expect the same conclusions to be made in all matters.
 
What I demonstrated rather successfully (imho) was that the tone and content of that post is nothing but trolling. Unless you would admit that you are just being a drama-queen.
- Blitz is not representing our position
- Blitz is linking us to mental illness, insanity, ... 
- Blitz is refusing to support his claims
 
I apologize to anyone if they were offended by that post (and the first part of this one). It was not my intention to insult, but to show behavior which shouldn't be condoned.
 
I give you the chance to apologize for what you wrote as well.

 

 

OK Fjuri, I get your point. And I do apologize for the brain sentence (I guess it's that part you are thinking about), I should have left that out.
 
But it would have been good to start the thread and explain why you write as you did, because when you write as you do one might easily misunderstand things. And some of the things you wrote are things that atheists often misunderstand regarding theism, see for example Goku's reply on complexity. And understanding theism (the worldview part) has nothing to do with what we believe, but rather has to do with understanding worldviews. To understand these thing it would be good to read something like The Universe Next Door by Sire, if you haven't already done that. 
 


#107 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 June 2016 - 08:34 AM

OK Fjuri, I get your point. And I do apologize for the brain sentence (I guess it's that part you are thinking about), I should have left that out.

 
But it would have been good to start the thread and explain why you write as you did, because when you write as you do one might easily misunderstand things. And some of the things you wrote are things that atheists often misunderstand regarding theism, see for example Goku's reply on complexity. And understanding theism (the worldview part) has nothing to do with what we believe, but rather has to do with understanding worldviews. To understand these thing it would be good to read something like The Universe Next Door by Sire, if you haven't already done that. 
 

Are you willing to discuss this further in a different topic? Since it is information about your worldview, I should only be asking questions and not make claims about what you belief. I'll even not understand everything at first glance.

 

I'll stress again though, that the claims I made were nothing more then an attempt to stretch theists claims into ridicule. Much like the OP did. They are not a good representation on what I think theists think.



#108 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 754 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 23 June 2016 - 09:41 AM

 

Fjuris text just make me wonder if he understand theism. It has nothing to do if the analogy used in the OP is good or bad. I guess he tries to show us how bad he thinks Blitz's post is. But the problem is that there are fundamental differences between creation and evolution due to the different worldviews at work. So Fjuri can't just swap creation for evolution and think he's proven something. So does Fjuri understand the basics of the theistic worldview? Or is it some kind of effects that continued belief of "evolution" do to his brains that he must defend "evolution" against things he doesn't understand? But just to answer shortly on what you wrote: 
 
1. While evolution is not entirely random (natural selection) it's still a stochastic process. Or more accurately it's a stochastic optimizing process (see evolutionary algorithms). But abiogenesis (on the other hand) is random, so saying that chemicals randomly assembled themselves into DNA seems to be correct if we are talking about abiogenesis. And yes mindless is an epithet of "evolution", but it's not an epithet of a creative process. So why use it?
 
2. Nope. Try to understand what complex actually means. Usually it means that something is composed of many interconnected parts. And according to theism God is not composed of any parts. According to the classical theism of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and their adherents, God is radically unlike creatures in that he is devoid of any complexity or composition, whether physical or metaphysical. God might have complex thoughts, but God is not complex.
 
3. Why is Fjuri using the term "popping into existence" in the first part, when it has no relevance to creationism?
 
I'm just trying to understand why Fjuri wrote as he did, and I haven't figured that out yet  :unsure:

 

 

As Fjuri related he wasn't trying to create an accurate representation of theism, but rather highlight a problem with the OP.
 

1. Abiogenesis also utilizes natural selection in the sense that some atoms/molecules are better suited in building up complex units than others; e.g. the fact that life is carbon-based rather than silicon-based is not random, or that (proto)cells have a lipid barrier/cell-membrane with hydrophobic regions in and hydrophilic regions out is not random, due to physics/chemistry these types of chemical make ups are expected to be selected for. I can't read Fjuri's mind, so I'll just emphasize that a clear point he is making is that the OP deliberately used emotionally charged words with the purpose of making evolution look bad, and used that wording to help suggest that evolutionists are mentally ill. Perhaps an accurate analogy would be to refer to God as the "sky daddy", a more or less correct statement in that God is your heavenly father and traditionally heaven was thought to dwell above the sky, but I think you would recognize such language as a deliberate attempt to mock your position rather than having a dialogue or serious discussion.

 

2. I am not saying God is or isn't complex, but that if God is not complex then that goes against the fundamental core of Intelligent Design as I understand it.

 

Do you reject the trinity doctrine?


  • Fjuri likes this

#109 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 533 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 June 2016 - 03:10 PM

An unanswered

 

 

I created this post and almot 3,000 others. Is that observable,  testable and repeatable enough to be conidered scientific

 

 

No Mike. You know very well creationism, as per post nr 44 doesn't speak of you writing posts. Creationism speaks of the creation act as described in Genesis 1 and 2. Are you going to compare you writing posts as evidence for the divine creation during the creation week?

Mike Summers: do you consider the fact that you wrote 3000 posts evidence for the creation acts as described in Genesis 1 and 2?



#110 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 June 2016 - 04:42 PM

Driewerf said:
 

No Mike. You know very well creationism, as per post nr 44 doesn't speak of you writing posts. Creationism speaks of the creation act as described in Genesis 1 and 2. Are you going to compare you writing posts as evidence for the divine creation during the creation week?

Mike Summers: do you consider the fact that you wrote 3000 posts evidence for the creation acts as described in Genesis 1 and 2?

I am intelligent as well as numerous others that have invented the telephone, autos, compters etc.
I consider that the same process was used, yes! I further state that no one intelligent can use evo to do anything because they would have a goal and evo does not have a goal according to Drwinian evo. It just happens to create everything. Whatever happens happens.
Hard cheese if you do not like what your theory portnds.

 



#111 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 23 June 2016 - 07:49 PM

Since it seems we are straying a little from the OP, Let me try to give it a nudge back on track..

 

DNA, bone cells, collagen, red blood cells,  and even ELASTIC blood vessels have been found in dinosaur bones from supposedly "65 - 85 Million Year Old" Creatures..

Instead of admitting that God was right all along and he created everything on Earth THOUSANDS instead of TENS OF MILLIONS of years ago, AbioDarwinists FORCE

themselves to believe Codswallop like "Iron Rich blood" has preservation qualities that seem to give Dinosaur DNA a shelf life of Nearly ETERNITY..!!!

 

Now, My question remains, Does forcing oneself to actually BELIEVE such Terradiddlish Blatherskite and Tommyrot over and over while Fighting ones normal common senses logic and critical thinking abilities Cause long term Neurodegenerative disease?   I think it is a perfectly REASONABLE question!!

 

======

Dr Mary Schweitzer has been rocking the evolutionary/uniformitarian world with discoveries of soft tissue in dinosaur bones.1 These discoveries have included blood cells, blood vessels, and proteins like collagen. But under measured rates of decomposition, they could not have lasted for the presumed 65 million years (Ma) since dino extinction, even if they had been kept at freezing point (never mind the much warmer climate proposed for the dinosaurs).2 As she said in a popular TV show:

… as well as the following in a scientific paper:

"When you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded completely".3

The presence of original molecular components is not predicted for fossils older than a million years, and the discovery of collagen in this well-preserved dinosaur supports the use of actualistic conditions to formulate molecular degradation rates and models, rather than relying on theoretical or experimental extrapolations derived from conditions that do not occur in nature.4

As a careful scientist, after Dr Schweitzer found elastic blood vessels and other soft tissue, she rechecked her data thoroughly. A report quoted her as follows:

“It was totally shocking,” Schweitzer says. “I didn’t believe it until we’d done it 17 times.”5

Other evolutionists saw the baneful implications to their long-age dogma, and claimed that the blood vessels were really bacterial biofilms, and the blood cells were iron-rich spheres called framboids.6 Yet this ignores the wide range of evidence Schweitzer adduced, and she has answered this claim in detail.7,8 However, Schweitzer herself maintains her faith in the long-age paradigm.9

 

http://creation.com/...-dna-bone-cells

 

All the Best!



#112 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 23 June 2016 - 11:10 PM

Are you willing to discuss this further in a different topic? Since it is information about your worldview, I should only be asking questions and not make claims about what you belief. I'll even not understand everything at first glance.

 

I'll stress again though, that the claims I made were nothing more then an attempt to stretch theists claims into ridicule. Much like the OP did. They are not a good representation on what I think theists think.

 

.Yes I can discuss this further in another topic. And I also would love to discuss Goku's claims about abiogenesis utilizing natural selection and ID needing a complex agent. But as Blitz pointed out, let's not do this in this thread.



#113 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 June 2016 - 11:54 PM

Since it seems we are straying a little from the OP, Let me try to give it a nudge back on track..

 

DNA, bone cells, collagen, red blood cells,  and even ELASTIC blood vessels have been found in dinosaur bones from supposedly "65 - 85 Million Year Old" Creatures..

Instead of admitting that God was right all along and he created everything on Earth THOUSANDS instead of TENS OF MILLIONS of years ago, AbioDarwinists FORCE

themselves to believe Codswallop like "Iron Rich blood" has preservation qualities that seem to give Dinosaur DNA a shelf life of Nearly ETERNITY..!!!

 

Now, My question remains, Does forcing oneself to actually BELIEVE such Terradiddlish Blatherskite and Tommyrot over and over while Fighting ones normal common senses logic and critical thinking abilities Cause long term Neurodegenerative disease?   I think it is a perfectly REASONABLE question!!

I'll answer your question. 

 

No, believing evolution is the consequence of being mentally superior. Well, superior in almost every other sense as well, but mentally is the issue at hand of course.

 

http://www.issr.org....eligious-faith/

 

Neurological Disorder and Religious Experiences: Another source of data on the relationship between brain function and religious experiences is the result of brain disease or injury. Most remarkable are the descriptions, found in both anecdotal accounts and the literature of clinical neurology, regarding intense religious experiences associated with temporal lobe epileptic seizures. In a small group of patients with this form of seizure disorder, intense religious awe, ecstasy, or feelings of divine presence occur as a consequence of the abnormal electrical activity of the brain that constitutes the aura leading up to a seizure. For example, one patient gave the following description of the experience of the aura: “Triple halos appeared around the sun. Suddenly the sunlight became intense. I experienced a revelation of God and of all creation glittering under the sun. The sun became bigger and engulfed me. My mind, my whole being was pervaded by a feeling of delight.”13
 
 Although such cases are rare, they are sufficiently frequent to provide speculation regarding the brain processes that may be associated with more normal sorts of intense religious experiences. For example, these sorts of clinical reports have led one neuroscientist to speculate regarding the possible existence of a “God Module” in the brain – that is, “dedicated neural machinery in the temporal lobes concerned with religion.”14 However, others do not believe the accounts support this conclusion, but rather suggest a “limbic marker hypothesis” such that the limbic structures of the temporal lobe that are involved in the seizures serve to tag information as “crucially important, harmonious, and/or joyous, prompting comprehension of these experiences within a religious framework.”15 As in the case of hallucinogenic drugs, it may be more the attributions provided by the patient, rather than the abnormal brain activity itself, that makes the experience seem religious.
 
Religious delusions are not uncommon in more severe forms of schizophrenia. A somewhat similar link between abnormal temporal lobe activity and religious experience has come from neuroimaging studies of individuals suffering from schizophrenia with religious delusions. For example, one study using Single Proton Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) scans found over-activation of the left temporal lobe during religious delusions.16
 
Reduced levels of religious experience have been found in other neurological disorders. One study found reduced intensity and frequency of self-reported religiosity in individuals with Parkinson’s disease, as well as diminished engagement in the private practices of religion (e.g., prayer, meditation, devotional reading). This reduced religiosity in Parkinson’s patients was correlated with neuropsychological measures reflecting functioning of the prefrontal cortex. These results suggest that low dopamine in limbic-prefrontal circuits (characteristic of Parkinson’s patients) reduces motivational support for religious practices.


#114 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 24 June 2016 - 12:07 AM

 

I'll answer your question. 

 

No, believing evolution is the consequence of being mentally superior. Well, superior in almost every other sense as well, but mentally is the issue at hand of course.

 

http://www.issr.org....eligious-faith/

 

Neurological Disorder and Religious Experiences: Another source of data on the relationship between brain function and religious experiences is the result of brain disease or injury. Most remarkable are the descriptions, found in both anecdotal accounts and the literature of clinical neurology, regarding intense religious experiences associated with temporal lobe epileptic seizures. In a small group of patients with this form of seizure disorder, intense religious awe, ecstasy, or feelings of divine presence occur as a consequence of the abnormal electrical activity of the brain that constitutes the aura leading up to a seizure. For example, one patient gave the following description of the experience of the aura: “Triple halos appeared around the sun. Suddenly the sunlight became intense. I experienced a revelation of God and of all creation glittering under the sun. The sun became bigger and engulfed me. My mind, my whole being was pervaded by a feeling of delight.”13
 
 Although such cases are rare, they are sufficiently frequent to provide speculation regarding the brain processes that may be associated with more normal sorts of intense religious experiences. For example, these sorts of clinical reports have led one neuroscientist to speculate regarding the possible existence of a “God Module” in the brain – that is, “dedicated neural machinery in the temporal lobes concerned with religion.”14 However, others do not believe the accounts support this conclusion, but rather suggest a “limbic marker hypothesis” such that the limbic structures of the temporal lobe that are involved in the seizures serve to tag information as “crucially important, harmonious, and/or joyous, prompting comprehension of these experiences within a religious framework.”15 As in the case of hallucinogenic drugs, it may be more the attributions provided by the patient, rather than the abnormal brain activity itself, that makes the experience seem religious.
 
Religious delusions are not uncommon in more severe forms of schizophrenia. A somewhat similar link between abnormal temporal lobe activity and religious experience has come from neuroimaging studies of individuals suffering from schizophrenia with religious delusions. For example, one study using Single Proton Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) scans found over-activation of the left temporal lobe during religious delusions.16
 
Reduced levels of religious experience have been found in other neurological disorders. One study found reduced intensity and frequency of self-reported religiosity in individuals with Parkinson’s disease, as well as diminished engagement in the private practices of religion (e.g., prayer, meditation, devotional reading). This reduced religiosity in Parkinson’s patients was correlated with neuropsychological measures reflecting functioning of the prefrontal cortex. These results suggest that low dopamine in limbic-prefrontal circuits (characteristic of Parkinson’s patients) reduces motivational support for religious practices.

 

 

Nice change up.. you would have made a good baseball pitcher!

Anyway.. Lets go back and read the link again, shall we? Please

let us know if you think it is REASONABLE to believe that dinosaurs

lived 100 Million Years Ago,(After reading the facts and evidence

posted here) Remember She did the test over 17 TIMES to make

SURE!!!  Or if it takes some serious mental contortions to believe it

and if those mental contortions can cause long term Neurodegenerative disease...

 Thanks Blitz

 

Here it is again for your reading pleasure!  Enjoy..

 

For the last 15 years, Dr Mary Schweitzer has been rocking the evolutionary/uniformitarian world with discoveries of soft tissue in dinosaur bones.1 These discoveries have included blood cells, blood vessels, and proteins like collagen. But under measured rates of decomposition, they could not have lasted for the presumed 65 million years (Ma) since dino extinction, even if they had been kept at freezing point (never mind the much warmer climate proposed for the dinosaurs).2 As she said in a popular TV show:

… as well as the following in a scientific paper:When you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded completely.3

The presence of original molecular components is not predicted for fossils older than a million years, and the discovery of collagen in this well-preserved dinosaur supports the use of actualistic conditions to formulate molecular degradation rates and models, rather than relying on theoretical or experimental extrapolations derived from conditions that do not occur in nature.4

As a careful scientist, after Dr Schweitzer found elastic blood vessels and other soft tissue, she rechecked her data thoroughly. A report quoted her as follows:

“It was totally shocking,” Schweitzer says. “I didn’t believe it until we’d done it 17 times.”5

Other evolutionists saw the baneful implications to their long-age dogma, and claimed that the blood vessels were really bacterial biofilms, and the blood cells were iron-rich spheres called framboids.6 Yet this ignores the wide range of evidence Schweitzer adduced, and she has answered this claim in detail.7,8 However, Schweitzer herself maintains her faith in the long-age paradigm.9

Dino bone cells and proteins

Schweitzer’s more recent research makes long ages even harder to believe. Here, she analyzed bone from two dinosaurs, the famous Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 112510) and a large duck-billed dinosaur called Brachylophosaurus canadensis (MOR 2598).11 Bone is an amazing structure with the ability to re-work in response to stress,12 and uses the finely designed protein osteocalcin,13 which has been found in the best known duck-billed dinosaur, Iguanadon, ‘dated’ to 120 Ma.14 The most plentiful cells in bones are osteocytes. These have a distinctive branching structure that connects to other osteocytes, and have a “vital role” in “immediate responses to changing stresses.”10

 

James D. San Antonio, Mary H. Schweitzer, Shane T. Jensen, Raghu Kalluri, Michael Buckley, Joseph P. R. O. Orgel. (2011). Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival. PLoS ONE 6(6): e20381. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020381

9012-trex-bone-1.jpg

 

Schweitzer’s team again removed the hard bony mineral with the chelating agent EDTA. They found “transparent cell-like microstructures with dentritic [branching, just the shape expected for osteocytes] processes, some containing internal contents,” from both dinos.

They also used antibodies to detect the globular proteins actin and tubulin, used to make filaments and tubes in vertebrates. The proteins from both dinos had similar binding patterns to the same proteins from ostrich and alligator. They are not found in bacteria, so this rules out contamination. In particular, these antibodies did not bind to the type of bacteria that forms biofilms, “thus a biofilm origin for these structures is not supported.”10 Furthermore, they tested for collagen, a fibrous animal protein, and it was found in these bones—but not in surrounding sediments.

 

Cells are usually completely degraded soon after the death of the organism, so how could ‘bone cells’ and the molecules that comprise them persist in Mesozoic [evolutionary dino-age] bone?—Mary Schweitzer et al.

 

Furthermore, because actin, tubulin, and collagen are not unique to bone, they tested for a very distinctive osteocyte protein called PHEX. This stands for Phosphate-regulating endopeptidase, X-linked, which is vital in depositing the hard bone mineral. And indeed, antibodies specific to PHEX detected this unique bone protein.15Detecting a distinctive bone protein is very strong support for osteocyte identification.

The problem for long ages is as they ask:

Cells are usually completely degraded soon after the death of the organism, so how could ‘bone cells’ and the molecules that comprise them persist in Mesozoic [evolutionary dino-age] bone?10

They try to solve this problem by proposing that bone protects the cells from bacteria that cause degradation. Bone would hinder the cells from swelling that comes before cells self-destruct (autolysis) as well. They also propose that the surfaces of the mineral crystals attract and destroy enzymes that would otherwise speed up degradation. They propose that iron may play a vital role too, both by helping to cross-link and stabilize the proteins, as well as by acting as an anti-oxidant.

Actually, this is all reasonable from a biblical creationist perspective, up to a point. Measured decay rates of some proteins are compatible with an age of about 4,500 years (since the Flood), but not with many millions of years. However, seeing not only proteins but even cell microstructures after 4,500 years is still surprising, considering how easily bacteria can normally attack them. These ideas could help explain survival over thousands of years. But they seem totally implausible for millions of years, since the above preservation proposals could not stop ordinary breakdown by water (hydrolysis) over vast eons.16

Dino DNA

 

However, even under the best preservation conditions at –5°C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA ‘strand’ after 6.8 Myr.—M.E. Allentoft et al.

 

The problem for long-agers is even more acute with their discovery of DNA. Estimates of DNA stability put its upper limit of survival at 125,000 years at 0°C, 17,500 years at 10°C and 2,500 years at 20°C.2 One recent report said:

“There is a general belief that DNA is ‘rock solid’—extremely stable,” says Brandt Eichman, associate professor of biological sciences at Vanderbilt, who directed the project. “Actually DNA is highly reactive.”
On a good day about one million bases in the DNA in a human cell are damaged. These lesions are caused by a combination of normal chemical activity within the cell and exposure to radiation and toxins coming from environmental sources including cigarette smoke, grilled foods and industrial wastes.17

A recent paper on DNA shows that it might be able to last as much as 400 times longer in bone.18 But even there, there is no way that DNA could last the evolutionary time since dino extinction. Their figures of the time till complete disintegration of DNA (“no intact bonds”) is 22,000 years at 25°C, 131,000 years at 15°C, 882,000 years at 5°C; and even if it could somehow be kept continually below freezing point at –5°C, it could survive only 6.83 Ma—only about a tenth of the assumed evolutionary age. The researchers state:

However, even under the best preservation conditions at –5°C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA ‘strand’ after 6.8 Myr. This displays the extreme improbability of being able to amplify a 174 bp DNA fragment from an 80–85 Myr old Cretaceous bone.18

Yet Schweitzer’s team detected DNA in three independent ways. Indeed, one of these chemical tests and specific antibodies specifically detect DNA in its double–stranded form. This shows that it was quite well preserved, since short strands of DNA less than about 10 bp don’t form stable duplexes. The stain DAPI19 lodges in the minor groove of a stable double helix, which requires even more bp. (see diagram below)

 

commons.wikimedia.org

DNA-DAPI.jpg

DAPI lodging into a DNA double helix groove.

 

Again, the first possible response by long-agers is “contamination”. But the DNA was not found everywhere, but only in certain internal regions of the ‘cells’. This pattern was just like in ostrich cells, but nothing like biofilm taken from other sources and exposed to the same DNA-detecting pattern. This is enough to rule out bacteria, because in more complex cells (such as ours and dinos), the DNA is stored in a small part of the cell—the nucleus.

Futhermore, Schweitzer’s team detected a special protein called histone H4. Not only is yet another protein a big problem for millions of years, but this is a specific protein for DNA. (DNA is Deoxy-riboNucleic Acid, so is negatively charged, while histones are alkaline so positively charged, so they attract DNA). In more complex organisms, the histones are tiny spools around which the DNA is wrapped.20 But histones are not found in bacteria. So, as Schweitzer et al. say, “These data support the presence of non-microbial DNA in these dinosaur cells.”11

Conclusion

It’s hard to improve on one of Mary Schweitzer’s early quotes:

It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones are, after all, 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?”21

But this just shows the grip of the long-age paradigm. A more reasonable and indeed scientific question would be:

This looks like modern bone; I have seen blood cells [and blood vessels] and detected hemoglobin [and now actin, tubulin, collagen, histones, and DNA], and real chemistry shows they can’t survive for 65 million years. What I don’t see is the claimed millions of years. So we should abandon this doctrine.


#115 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 24 June 2016 - 12:12 AM

Nice change up.. you would have made a good baseball pitcher!

I don't bother. If the subject is about our mental health, I've quoted you an article about our mental health.

I'm not gonna bother with refuting every single creationist nonsense claim you throw at me just because you're mentally incapable of sticking to the subject yourself.



#116 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 24 June 2016 - 08:12 PM

 

I'll answer your question. 

 

No, believing evolution is the consequence of being mentally superior. Well, superior in almost every other sense as well, but mentally is the issue at hand of course.

 

http://www.issr.org....eligious-faith/

 

Neurological Disorder and Religious Experiences: Another source of data on the relationship between brain function and religious experiences is the result of brain disease or injury. Most remarkable are the descriptions, found in both anecdotal accounts and the literature of clinical neurology, regarding intense religious experiences associated with temporal lobe epileptic seizures. In a small group of patients with this form of seizure disorder, intense religious awe, ecstasy, or feelings of divine presence occur as a consequence of the abnormal electrical activity of the brain that constitutes the aura leading up to a seizure. For example, one patient gave the following description of the experience of the aura: “Triple halos appeared around the sun. Suddenly the sunlight became intense. I experienced a revelation of God and of all creation glittering under the sun. The sun became bigger and engulfed me. My mind, my whole being was pervaded by a feeling of delight.”13
 
 Although such cases are rare, they are sufficiently frequent to provide speculation regarding the brain processes that may be associated with more normal sorts of intense religious experiences. For example, these sorts of clinical reports have led one neuroscientist to speculate regarding the possible existence of a “God Module” in the brain – that is, “dedicated neural machinery in the temporal lobes concerned with religion.”14 However, others do not believe the accounts support this conclusion, but rather suggest a “limbic marker hypothesis” such that the limbic structures of the temporal lobe that are involved in the seizures serve to tag information as “crucially important, harmonious, and/or joyous, prompting comprehension of these experiences within a religious framework.”15 As in the case of hallucinogenic drugs, it may be more the attributions provided by the patient, rather than the abnormal brain activity itself, that makes the experience seem religious.
 
Religious delusions are not uncommon in more severe forms of schizophrenia. A somewhat similar link between abnormal temporal lobe activity and religious experience has come from neuroimaging studies of individuals suffering from schizophrenia with religious delusions. For example, one study using Single Proton Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) scans found over-activation of the left temporal lobe during religious delusions.16
 
Reduced levels of religious experience have been found in other neurological disorders. One study found reduced intensity and frequency of self-reported religiosity in individuals with Parkinson’s disease, as well as diminished engagement in the private practices of religion (e.g., prayer, meditation, devotional reading). This reduced religiosity in Parkinson’s patients was correlated with neuropsychological measures reflecting functioning of the prefrontal cortex. These results suggest that low dopamine in limbic-prefrontal circuits (characteristic of Parkinson’s patients) reduces motivational support for religious practices.

 

 

This is really terrible science. A none naturalistic explanation could be that the temporal lobe is processing things from the spiritual realm, just like other parts of the brains are processing optical input. Just because a part of the brain is more (or less) involved in processing data, does not need to mean that the input must be delusional. It could be that the input is real, and how do you now that? You don't get to the truth by presupposing the conclusion!



#117 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 24 June 2016 - 09:51 PM

I don't bother. If the subject is about our mental health, I've quoted you an article about our mental health.

I'm not gonna bother with refuting every single creationist nonsense claim you throw at me just because you're mentally incapable of sticking to the subject yourself.

 

Actually, this is not a "Creationist nonsense claim"  These are EVOLUTIONISTS! did you even read it?

 

Anyway, the questions still stands..

 

Do you think it is REASONABLE to believe that dinosaurs lived

100 Million Years Ago,(After reading the facts and evidence

posted here) Remember She did the test over 17 TIMES to make

SURE!!! 

 

Do you think that DNA has no shelf life or expiration date?

If it is not 100 Million Years, What would it be? a Billion? a Trillion?

Just curious as to how Darwinists thinking processes work, that's all..

 

Here it is again...

 

For the last 15 years, Dr Mary Schweitzer has been rocking the evolutionary/uniformitarian world with discoveries of soft tissue in dinosaur bones.1 These discoveries have included blood cells, blood vessels, and proteins like collagen. But under measured rates of decomposition, they could not have lasted for the presumed 65 million years (Ma) since dino extinction, even if they had been kept at freezing point (never mind the much warmer climate proposed for the dinosaurs).2 As she said in a popular TV show:

… as well as the following in a scientific paper: When you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded completely.3

As a careful scientist, after Dr Schweitzer found elastic blood vessels and other soft tissue, she rechecked her data thoroughly. A report quoted her as follows:The presence of original molecular components is not predicted for fossils older than a million years, and the discovery of collagen in this well-preserved dinosaur supports the use of actualistic conditions to formulate molecular degradation rates and models, rather than relying on theoretical or experimental extrapolations derived from conditions that do not occur in nature.4

Other evolutionists saw the baneful implications to their long-age dogma, and claimed that the blood vessels were really bacterial biofilms, and the blood cells were iron-rich spheres called framboids.6 Yet this ignores the wide range of evidence Schweitzer adduced, and she has answered this claim in detail.7,8 However, Schweitzer herself maintains her faith in the long-age paradigm.9“It was totally shocking,” Schweitzer says. “I didn’t believe it until we’d done it 17 times.”5

Dino bone cells and proteins

Schweitzer’s more recent research makes long ages even harder to believe. Here, she analyzed bone from two dinosaurs, the famous Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 112510) and a large duck-billed dinosaur called Brachylophosaurus canadensis (MOR 2598).11 Bone is an amazing structure with the ability to re-work in response to stress,12 and uses the finely designed protein osteocalcin,13 which has been found in the best known duck-billed dinosaur, Iguanadon, ‘dated’ to 120 Ma.14 The most plentiful cells in bones are osteocytes. These have a distinctive branching structure that connects to other osteocytes, and have a “vital role” in “immediate responses to changing stresses.”10

 

James D. San Antonio, Mary H. Schweitzer, Shane T. Jensen, Raghu Kalluri, Michael Buckley, Joseph P. R. O. Orgel. (2011). Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival. PLoS ONE 6(6): e20381. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020381

9012-trex-bone-1.jpg

 

Schweitzer’s team again removed the hard bony mineral with the chelating agent EDTA. They found “transparent cell-like microstructures with dentritic [branching, just the shape expected for osteocytes] processes, some containing internal contents,” from both dinos.

They also used antibodies to detect the globular proteins actin and tubulin, used to make filaments and tubes in vertebrates. The proteins from both dinos had similar binding patterns to the same proteins from ostrich and alligator. They are not found in bacteria, so this rules out contamination. In particular, these antibodies did not bind to the type of bacteria that forms biofilms, “thus a biofilm origin for these structures is not supported.”10 Furthermore, they tested for collagen, a fibrous animal protein, and it was found in these bones—but not in surrounding sediments.

 

Cells are usually completely degraded soon after the death of the organism, so how could ‘bone cells’ and the molecules that comprise them persist in Mesozoic [evolutionary dino-age] bone?—Mary Schweitzer et al.

 

Furthermore, because actin, tubulin, and collagen are not unique to bone, they tested for a very distinctive osteocyte protein called PHEX. This stands for Phosphate-regulating endopeptidase, X-linked, which is vital in depositing the hard bone mineral. And indeed, antibodies specific to PHEX detected this unique bone protein.15Detecting a distinctive bone protein is very strong support for osteocyte identification.

The problem for long ages is as they ask:

Cells are usually completely degraded soon after the death of the organism, so how could ‘bone cells’ and the molecules that comprise them persist in Mesozoic [evolutionary dino-age] bone?10

They try to solve this problem by proposing that bone protects the cells from bacteria that cause degradation. Bone would hinder the cells from swelling that comes before cells self-destruct (autolysis) as well. They also propose that the surfaces of the mineral crystals attract and destroy enzymes that would otherwise speed up degradation. They propose that iron may play a vital role too, both by helping to cross-link and stabilize the proteins, as well as by acting as an anti-oxidant.

Actually, this is all reasonable from a biblical creationist perspective, up to a point. Measured decay rates of some proteins are compatible with an age of about 4,500 years (since the Flood), but not with many millions of years. However, seeing not only proteins but even cell microstructures after 4,500 years is still surprising, considering how easily bacteria can normally attack them. These ideas could help explain survival over thousands of years. But they seem totally implausible for millions of years, since the above preservation proposals could not stop ordinary breakdown by water (hydrolysis) over vast eons.16

Dino DNA

 

However, even under the best preservation conditions at –5°C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA ‘strand’ after 6.8 Myr.—M.E. Allentoft et al.

 

The problem for long-agers is even more acute with their discovery of DNA. Estimates of DNA stability put its upper limit of survival at 125,000 years at 0°C, 17,500 years at 10°C and 2,500 years at 20°C.2 One recent report said:

“There is a general belief that DNA is ‘rock solid’—extremely stable,” says Brandt Eichman, associate professor of biological sciences at Vanderbilt, who directed the project. “Actually DNA is highly reactive.”
On a good day about one million bases in the DNA in a human cell are damaged. These lesions are caused by a combination of normal chemical activity within the cell and exposure to radiation and toxins coming from environmental sources including cigarette smoke, grilled foods and industrial wastes.17

A recent paper on DNA shows that it might be able to last as much as 400 times longer in bone.18 But even there, there is no way that DNA could last the evolutionary time since dino extinction. Their figures of the time till complete disintegration of DNA (“no intact bonds”) is 22,000 years at 25°C, 131,000 years at 15°C, 882,000 years at 5°C; and even if it could somehow be kept continually below freezing point at –5°C, it could survive only 6.83 Ma—only about a tenth of the assumed evolutionary age. The researchers state:

However, even under the best preservation conditions at –5°C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA ‘strand’ after 6.8 Myr. This displays the extreme improbability of being able to amplify a 174 bp DNA fragment from an 80–85 Myr old Cretaceous bone.18

Yet Schweitzer’s team detected DNA in three independent ways. Indeed, one of these chemical tests and specific antibodies specifically detect DNA in its double–stranded form. This shows that it was quite well preserved, since short strands of DNA less than about 10 bp don’t form stable duplexes. The stain DAPI19 lodges in the minor groove of a stable double helix, which requires even more bp. (see diagram below)

 

commons.wikimedia.org

DNA-DAPI.jpg

DAPI lodging into a DNA double helix groove.

 

Again, the first possible response by long-agers is “contamination”. But the DNA was not found everywhere, but only in certain internal regions of the ‘cells’. This pattern was just like in ostrich cells, but nothing like biofilm taken from other sources and exposed to the same DNA-detecting pattern. This is enough to rule out bacteria, because in more complex cells (such as ours and dinos), the DNA is stored in a small part of the cell—the nucleus.

Futhermore, Schweitzer’s team detected a special protein called histone H4. Not only is yet another protein a big problem for millions of years, but this is a specific protein for DNA. (DNA is Deoxy-riboNucleic Acid, so is negatively charged, while histones are alkaline so positively charged, so they attract DNA). In more complex organisms, the histones are tiny spools around which the DNA is wrapped.20 But histones are not found in bacteria. So, as Schweitzer et al. say, “These data support the presence of non-microbial DNA in these dinosaur cells.”11

Conclusion

It’s hard to improve on one of Mary Schweitzer’s early quotes:

It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones are, after all, 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?”21

But this just shows the grip of the long-age paradigm. A more reasonable and indeed scientific question would be:

This looks like modern bone; I have seen blood cells [and blood vessels] and detected hemoglobin [and now actin, tubulin, collagen, histones, and DNA], and real chemistry shows they can’t survive for 65 million years. What I don’t see is the claimed millions of years. So we should abandon this doctrine.


#118 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,325 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 25 June 2016 - 12:14 AM

I had not been commenting on this because the OP complained against "abioDarwinism" which I took to be the origin of life.

Since it seems we are straying a little from the OP, Let me try to give it a nudge back on track..

I'll answer your question. 

 

No, believing evolution is the consequence of being mentally superior. Well, superior in almost every other sense as well, but mentally is the issue at hand of course.

 

http://www.issr.org....eligious-faith/

Nice change up.. you would have made a good baseball pitcher!

Anyway..

Is it a "change up?"  Let's go back and look at the OP....

 

Does forcing one's brain to perform all of the mental contortions required to believe in

"Evolution" or More Accurately, The Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of abiogenesis

followed by Darwinian common ancestor for every living thing have any relation to  

secondary side affects such as Psychosis, Neurosis or other pathogenic Mental /

Psychological disorders due to the creation of unhealthy neural pathways in the brain?

Are there detrimental side effects from forcing oneself to believe that which they know

full well in their subconscious to be Impossible? 

....

I am curious if anyone qualified to do so has done any studies on the subject..

(Obviously Politically Incorrect to suggest it as well)

 

Kind Regards Blitzking

Notice, the focus of OP was asking about mental illness associated with acceptance of abiogenesis and common ancestry. 

 

The study posted by Fjuri was relevant to the OP as it dealt with mental health and religion ..... which certainly fits creationism and according to many creationists, evolution as well ..... 

 

The time frame was mentioned only casually by a reference to "MYO" (which I took to be "millions of years old).   Now, with this, we are looking at the time frame:

 

DNA, bone cells, collagen, red blood cells,  and even ELASTIC blood vessels have been found in dinosaur bones from supposedly "65 - 85 Million Year Old" Creatures..

Instead of admitting that God was right all along and he created everything on Earth THOUSANDS instead of TENS OF MILLIONS of years ago, AbioDarwinists FORCE

themselves to believe Codswallop like "Iron Rich blood" has preservation qualities that seem to give Dinosaur DNA a shelf life of Nearly ETERNITY..!!!

 

Now, My question remains, Does forcing oneself to actually BELIEVE such Terradiddlish Blatherskite and Tommyrot over and over while Fighting ones normal common senses logic and critical thinking abilities Cause long term Neurodegenerative disease?   I think it is a perfectly REASONABLE question!!

 Lets go back and read the link again, shall we? Please

let us know if you think it is REASONABLE to believe that dinosaurs

lived 100 Million Years Ago,(After reading the facts and evidence

posted here) Remember She did the test over 17 TIMES to make

SURE!!!  Or if it takes some serious mental contortions to believe it

and if those mental contortions can cause long term Neurodegenerative disease...

You do realize those "TENS OF MILLIONS" of years come from completely independent branches of science that have nothing at all to do with evolution, don't you?

 

The age of the Earth is based on radioisotope measurements.  While those techniques have considerable difficulties, multiple methods converge on an age of 4.5 billion years for the Earth.

 

The age of the universe is based on astronomical observation of distance objects.  The most distant object measured by direct triangulation is, to the best of my knowledge, SN1987a at 167,000+ light years (ly).  Standard candle methods are useful to 5 billion light years.

 

So, let's look at the three methods of age determination ..... biological decay, nuclear decay, and astronomical measurement REASONABLY.

 

Biological decay .... rate of process varies by several orders of magnitude due to a half-dozen external factors including (but not limited to) temperature, humidity, exposure to sunlight, exposure to the elements, pH, and biological activity.

 

Nuclear decay .... rate of process extremely stable.  There is a known annual fluctuation of about 1% in the rate.  IIRC, the cause is thought to be solar neutrinos.  Woodmorappe did research showing decay rates are stable to temperatures of about 200 million Kelvin (360 million F).  Short of a nuclear chain reaction, there is no other known way to effect nuclear decay rates.

 

Astronomical measurement .... based  on "time = distance / velocity" using trigonometric measurements or the inverse square law (standard candles) and the speed of light.  The spectra of Sn1987a shows the speed of light at the time and place of that event was within a few percent of modern values on Earth.  Australian astronomer Paul Davies published a study in 2002 showing the speed of light when it left galaxies 12 billion light years from Earth was within 0.001% of modern Earth values.  The published speed of light is the value in a vacuum.  Light can be slowed when it passes thru a medium such as the atmosphere.  At a minimum, the 1987a data and Davies' study show the speed of light to be consistent (within a few percent).

 

So, it is REASONABLE to discard ages based two different and independent highly stable processes due to an unexpected finding based on a third process that is subject to no fewer than a half dozen external variables?  Really?

 

I will answer your question(s) with my own:

In view of the fact that you can walk out in your back yard and see, with your unaided eye an object whose light took 2.4 million years to reach earth... "Does forcing one's brain to perform all of the mental contortions required to believe in" a universe only THOUSANDS rather than BILLIONS of years old "have any relation to  

secondary side affects such as Psychosis, Neurosis or other pathogenic Mental / Psychological disorders due to the creation of unhealthy neural pathways in the brain?  Are there detrimental side effects from forcing oneself to believe that which they know full well in their subconscious to be Impossible? .... Does forcing oneself to actually BELIEVE such Terradiddlish Blatherskite and Tommyrot over and over while Fighting ones normal common senses logic and critical thinking abilities Cause long term Neurodegenerative disease?"



#119 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 June 2016 - 07:50 PM

OK. lets take a peek under the hood.. Mindless MYO Mud to man Myth does NOT address the age of the universe but DOES indeed imply "Million Year Old" when it comes to the supposed "Evolution of Man" from "Mud" (Or if you prefer, the primordial ooze, the atheist's "Garden of Eden" or "undersea vents" or you can fill in the blanks yourself.)

 

So you are being a little dishonest with your conflation between the "Evolution of man" or "Age of the dinosaurs" and the "Age of the Earth" Got it?

-----------

 

"The age of the Earth is based on radioisotope measurements.  While those techniques have considerable difficulties, multiple methods converge on an age of 4.5 billion years for the Earth

Now you are being more honest.. with your phrase "those techniques have considerable difficulties"..   BTW.. THAT IS THE UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR!!

 

But lets look even closer shall we?

 

Maybe you should stop just making assumptions based on what you have been indoctrinated to believe and SEE OUT THE TRUTH FOR YOURSELF!!

 

In his book, The Science of Evolution, on page 84, William D. Stansfield, a devout and prestigious EVOLUTIONIST, lists multiple techniques and evidences for dating the age of the earth, all of which, Stansfield admits, indicate a much younger earth than the 4 billion or so years typically advocated by evolutionists.

Stansfield says these lines of evidence include 1) water (quantity) from volcanoes, 2) lava from volcanoes, 3) underground oil pressure which lessens over time, 4) uranium accumulation in the oceans, 5) Carbon-14 in the atmosphere, 6) helium in the atmosphere produced from uranium decay which ought to be about 10,000 times higher than it actually is if, in fact, the earth is 4 billion years old, 7) meteoric dust accumulation-which currently accumulates at the rate of somewhat over 14 ½ billion tons per year, 8) meteorites and meteoric dust in strata (which is for all practical purposes non-existent, and 9) population dynamics.

Curiously enough, only ONE dating method is known by the general public and only ONE dating method is routinely used by the faithful devotees of evolution, that of radiometric dating from radioactive decay, that is, the measurement of “daughter elements” present in igneous rock as compared to the “parent” radioactive element. For example, uranium decays ultimately into lead, radioactive potassium decays into argon, and radioactive rubidium decays into strontium. The theory is that a comparison of the ratios of parent to daughter elements gives us an age determination based upon the believed half-life of the radioactive element. This method of dating assumes that we are dealing with closed systems in the rock of the ground (no leaching in or out of minerals and elements), an assumption that no one believes to be true.

There is an agenda on the part of evolutionists for this preference for radiometric dating over other methods of dating: namely, of all of the methods for dating the age of the earth, the radiometric technique yields the oldest results. Never mind that the other methods yield dating results at variance with radiometric dating–something which should be a red flag to any objective inquirer. Ancient ages to the tune of billions of years are deemed NECESSARY by evolutionists to prop up faltering evolutionary dogma. Therefore, no other justification for relying on radiometric dating and ignoring other dating methods is deemed necessary or required.

Consider me the prosecuting attorney here. I am hereby bringing charges against radiometric dating. I accuse radiometric dating (more accurately the assumptions which are utilized in connection with radiometric dating) of fraud. In a court of law there are two legal kinds of fraud: “actual fraud” and “constructive fraud,” the distinction being the first is deliberate and the latter is inadvertent. I will let you, the reader, decide whether we have been the victims of actual or constructive fraud on the part of evolutionists.

I assert that radiometric dating is completely unreliable. I have some witnesses to summon, both friendly and hostile, to solidly back up this claim.

WITNESS #1

My first witness is ROGER LEWIN, hard-core evolutionist and atheist, Ph. D. in biochemistry, was editor of research news at the prestigious “Science” magazine in Washington D.C., and was editor at “New Science” magazine in London. Lewin is an INSIDER in the world of paleoanthropology and co-authored three books (Origins and Origins Reconsidered and The Sixth Extinction) with Richard Leakey, son of the famous Louis Leakey.

Lewin’s book, “Bones of Contention” is a kind of play-by-play recounting of the famous and longstanding controversy between the Leakeys and Donald Johanson regarding supposed human evolutionary origins.

Roger Lewin is by no stretch of the imagination a fellow traveler with creationists and certainly not young earth creationists. I found Lewin’s Bones of Contention to be kind of tedious and boring reading but also very eye opening at certain points and well worth the tedium for what it tells us about the world of “science,” and especially the world of paleoanthropology.

In “Bones of Contention,” Lewin has earned for himself the title “Whistleblower of Paleoanthropology.” Lewin gives us a candid insiders’ view and paints a picture of a “science” given over to WHOLLY SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE, and also of prima donna egos run amok. Lewin’s book focuses mainly upon the conflict of opinions and strife for preeminence in the world of paleoanthropology between the Leakeys and Donald Johanson (the Leakeys asserting a very ancient origin for the genus Homo and Johanson a more recent one).

I am personally more interested in the science but it is a very valuable lesson Lewin teaches about the role of subjective interpretation in science. Lewin sums up the world of paleoanthropology on pg. 19 by giving us a play on words on the old proverb, “If I hadn’t seen it, I wouldn’t have believed it.” In a humorous twist of the old expression, Lewin characterizes the modus operandi of paleoanthropologists:

“The anonymous aphorism ‘I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t believed it’ is a continuing truth in science.”

In other words, Lewin is saying scientists see what they WANT to see. The belief comes first, then the endeavor to fit the data into the belief system and the dismissal of contrary evidence. They project their own mental constructs and superimpose them like a veneer onto the raw data. The actual raw data, unfortunately, cuts an enormously wide path for personalities given over to subjectivism to play around with. Lewin notes on page 23 that there are “a limited number of fossil sites to work, and a still pitifully small inventory of fossils to analyze,” and on page 194 (regarding the famous skull 1470) and directly pertinent to radiometric dating:

“At a conference in Nairobi held in September 1973 they presented 41 SEPARATE AGE DETERMINATIONS on the KBS Tuff [where the skull was found], WHICH VARIED BETWEEN 223 MILLION AND 0.91 MILLION” years of age using radiometric dating !!! (emph. supp.)

Don’t just hurry by that. Note well: 41 separate and discordant age determinations using radiometric dating ranging from 900,000 years to 223 million years! Leakey picked the result he liked and discarded the other forty results, the general public being none the wiser. This kind of smorgasbord approach to dating of rocks and fossils is unfortunately routine. It is the rule rather than the exception. Why not pick the 223 million year result?

Unfortunately, Lewin does NOT inform his readers that such variations of radiometric dating results are the RULE across ALL of the scientific disciplines which use radiometric dating. The scientists pick the dates they like and DISCARD (upon what criterion?) the rest of the dates that don’t conform to their pet theories, in this case 40(!!!) total other dating results discarded based upon wholly subjective considerations. The discarded results are arbitrarily labeled as “aberrations,” or “contaminated,” or the result of careless testing procedures.  The trade secret of modern “science” is that radiometric dating is entirely useless and based on layer upon layer of assumptions.

 

Did you read that last part?   Radiometric Dating is ENTIRELY USELESS!!!!!!

 

So Much for Your "Independent Highly Stable Processes" LOL

 

You see, you don't get to decide what's true Just Because You WANT SOMETHING TO BE TRUE..

We need to Look at the EMPIRICAL SCIENTIDIC EVIDENCE..

 

 

Next! :kaffeetrinker:



#120 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 June 2016 - 08:22 PM

I had not been commenting on this because the OP complained against "abioDarwinism" which I took to be the origin of life.

Is it a "change up?"  Let's go back and look at the OP....

 

Notice, the focus of OP was asking about mental illness associated with acceptance of abiogenesis and common ancestry. 

 

The study posted by Fjuri was relevant to the OP as it dealt with mental health and religion ..... which certainly fits creationism and according to many creationists, evolution as well ..... 

 

The time frame was mentioned only casually by a reference to "MYO" (which I took to be "millions of years old).   Now, with this, we are looking at the time frame:

 

You do realize those "TENS OF MILLIONS" of years come from completely independent branches of science that have nothing at all to do with evolution, don't you?

 

The age of the Earth is based on radioisotope measurements.  While those techniques have considerable difficulties, multiple methods converge on an age of 4.5 billion years for the Earth.

 

The age of the universe is based on astronomical observation of distance objects.  The most distant object measured by direct triangulation is, to the best of my knowledge, SN1987a at 167,000+ light years (ly).  Standard candle methods are useful to 5 billion light years.

 

So, let's look at the three methods of age determination ..... biological decay, nuclear decay, and astronomical measurement REASONABLY.

 

Biological decay .... rate of process varies by several orders of magnitude due to a half-dozen external factors including (but not limited to) temperature, humidity, exposure to sunlight, exposure to the elements, pH, and biological activity.

 

Nuclear decay .... rate of process extremely stable.  There is a known annual fluctuation of about 1% in the rate.  IIRC, the cause is thought to be solar neutrinos.  Woodmorappe did research showing decay rates are stable to temperatures of about 200 million Kelvin (360 million F).  Short of a nuclear chain reaction, there is no other known way to effect nuclear decay rates.

 

Astronomical measurement .... based  on "time = distance / velocity" using trigonometric measurements or the inverse square law (standard candles) and the speed of light.  The spectra of Sn1987a shows the speed of light at the time and place of that event was within a few percent of modern values on Earth.  Australian astronomer Paul Davies published a study in 2002 showing the speed of light when it left galaxies 12 billion light years from Earth was within 0.001% of modern Earth values.  The published speed of light is the value in a vacuum.  Light can be slowed when it passes thru a medium such as the atmosphere.  At a minimum, the 1987a data and Davies' study show the speed of light to be consistent (within a few percent).

 

So, it is REASONABLE to discard ages based two different and independent highly stable processes due to an unexpected finding based on a third process that is subject to no fewer than a half dozen external variables?  Really?

 

I will answer your question(s) with my own:

In view of the fact that you can walk out in your back yard and see, with your unaided eye an object whose light took 2.4 million years to reach earth... "Does forcing one's brain to perform all of the mental contortions required to believe in" a universe only THOUSANDS rather than BILLIONS of years old "have any relation to  

secondary side affects such as Psychosis, Neurosis or other pathogenic Mental / Psychological disorders due to the creation of unhealthy neural pathways in the brain?  Are there detrimental side effects from forcing oneself to believe that which they know full well in their subconscious to be Impossible? .... Does forcing oneself to actually BELIEVE such Terradiddlish Blatherskite and Tommyrot over and over while Fighting ones normal common senses logic and critical thinking abilities Cause long term Neurodegenerative disease?"

 

It says in your handle that you consider yourself to be a "Christian"  Why don't you trust the very God that you supposedly believe in who told us Exactly how and how long it took him to create the universe and ultimately Man?

 

Listen, Trusting Man Made "Psuedo Science" can be Deadly (Ask George Washington) and cost you your soul for calling God a Liar just to try to please Darwin, WHY?

 

Darwinism is a dead dog's carcass that is only being propped up by militant atheists, God haters. Low IQ / indifferent people and Brainwashed / Indoctrinated "Oval Earthers"

BTW the "Compromise" ID is gaining traction in the scientific community.. They are willing to go against their A Priori position of Metaphysical Methodical Naturalism because they are getting CRUSHED under the weight of the preponderance of evidence against them.. So, Like Christianity / Paganism of  Emperor Constantine from 4th century Rome, They will EVENTUALLY be forced to recognize the existence of an "Intelligence Agent" Behind it all.. (as long as it is not the Judeo Christian God of the Bible!!!)

 

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

 

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."

 

Come on back to the Truth and the light and Escape the chains of the Dark Side while you still have breath in your lungs...

 

I tell you this in love.. I am NOT your enemy, Darwin / Satan is..

 

 

 

17 verses in the Bible state that God expanded
the size of the Universe from its original size.
What affect did that have on time, and on red and blue shift?

 

 

Seven books of the Bible reference this event starting from about 1000 BC in the book of Psalms, to about 518 BC in the book of Zechariah (a span of almost 500 years).  This "stretching" of the universe was done during the creation week described in Genesis.  Dr. Russell Humphreys suggests in his book Starlight and Time that it may have given the universe an older look the farther you move away from Earth into the outermost reaches of the universe.  From Earth's perspective, the universe would be about 6,000 - 10,000 years old.  However, in the outermost reaches of the universe, this rapid expansion may have given those galaxies the appearance of being billions of years old, even though they aged that much in what is most likely less than 24 hours.

Current evolutionary thinking suggests that the universe is still expanding.  This is based in large part of the belief that 'red shift' indicates that the stars and galaxies are moving away from each other.  However, Isaiah 40:22 seems to suggest that this expanding of the galaxies was a one time event that occurred in a very short amount of time (probably in less than 24 hours), and that the expansion may no longer be occurring.  Tents and curtains don't keep expanding once they're fully opened up. They are finite in size. 

Furthermore, none of these Bible verses appear to suggest that this expansion is still going on.  

[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
- Isaiah 40:22

Do scientists really know what the impact would be of having the universe expanded at what was most likely millions or even billions of times faster than the speed of light?  How would such a rapid expansion affect the visible red and blue shift we see today in space?  How would that affect time, especially at the outer edges of the universe?  Could the red shift that evolutionists believe indicates an expanding universe actually be the result of this rapid stretching of the universe that started and ended about 6,000 years ago?

Quotes below are from the King James Bible (KJV), and are listed in alphabetical order.

Ezekiel
Author(s): Ezekiel
Date: 592-570 B.C.

And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature [was] as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.
Ezekiel 1:22

Isaiah
Author(s): Isaiah
Date: 746-680 B.C.

[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
- Isaiah 40:22

Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
Isaiah 42:5

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
Isaiah 44:24

I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
Isaiah 45:12

Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: [when] I call unto them, they stand up together.
Isaiah 48:13

And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where [is] the fury of the oppressor?
Isaiah 51:13

Jeremiah
Author(s): Jeremiah
Date: 627-585 B.C.

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
Jeremiah 10:12

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.
Jeremiah 51:15

Job
Author(s): Possibly Job, Elihu,
Moses or Solomon; not sure
Date: 950 B.C. or earlier

Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.
Job 9:8

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Job 26:7

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, [which is] strong, [and] as a molten looking glass?
Job 37:18

Psalms
Author(s): Several
Date: Varied, about 1000 B.C.

He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness [was] under his feet.
Psalms 18:9

Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
Psalms 104:2

Bow thy heavens, O LORD, and come down: touch the mountains, and they shall smoke.
Psalms 144:5

2 Samuel
Author(s): Samuel, Nathan, Gad
Date: About 930 BC

He bowed the heavens also, and came down; and darkness [was] under his feet.
2 Samuel 22:10

 

Zechariah
Author(s): Zechariah
Date: 520-518 B.C.

The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
Zechariah 12:1







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: INSANITY, FAIRY TALE, ABIODARWINISM, MENTAL ILLNESS, FANTASY, DELUSION

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users