getting dates about a young earth
- Thread starter Dan_473
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
4
49
Guest
That is neat!Whatever had happened so suddenly, that they did not have time to chew their food.
He is just another imperfect human being who observed things and then made assumptions based on those observations, amazing? I don't agree.
Many of the great repositories of fossils are jumbled piles of bones from many different types of animals. Just the result you might expect if they died in a great flood and were stirred by huge currents and swirled about under water. Had they been exposed on the surface and not covered in mud they no doubt would have rotted before they were fossilized.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
:8) how could they could this planet as earth when there so much water in here :rofl:
:smoke: is this the earth that we are talking about where almost every part of it is field of water
:read:
"It's a paradox," said Leonid Moroz, a neurobiologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville and lead author of a paper in today's Nature about the biology of the comb jelly nervous system. "These are animals with a complex nervous system, but they basically use a completely different chemical language" from every other animal. "You have to explain it one way or another."
The way Moroz explains it is with an evolutionary scenario—one that's at odds with traditional accounts of animal evolution.
Moroz and his colleagues have been studying comb jellies, whose scientific name is ctenophores (pronounced TEN-o-fors), for many years, beginning with the sequencing of the genome of one species, the Pacific sea gooseberry, in 2007. The sea gooseberry has 19,523 genes, about the same number as are found in the human genome.
The scientists enlarged their library to the genes of ten other species of comb jelly (out of the 150 or so species known to exist) and compared them to the analogous genes in other animals. And when they looked at the genes involved in the nervous system, they found that many considered essential for the development and function of neurons were simply missing in the comb jelly.
Some of those missing genes are involved in building neurons in embryos. The cells in any animal start out in the embryo as stem cells, looking pretty much identical to one another and capable of turning into any particular type of cell. Only later in embryonic development do some stem cells switch on specific genes that transform them into neurons. This process is much the same in humans as it is in flies, slugs, and just about every other animal with a nervous system.
But comb jellies, Moroz and his colleagues found, lack those neuron-building genes altogether. Which means that comb jelly embryos must build their neurons from a different set of instructions—instructions no one yet understands.
Nor do comb jellies use the standard complement of neurotransmitters found in other animals, the scientists found. The genes for most of the neurotransmitters in other animals are either missing or silent in the comb jelly—except for one, the gene for the neurotransmitter glutamate. No wonder Moroz likes to call these creatures "aliens of the sea."
Instead of the typical
Rewriting Evolutionary History
The unique nature of the comb jelly nervous system led the Florida scientists to hypothesize a new evolutionary history for these marine animals, which they laid out in the Nature paper. The earliest animals, according to this new theory, had no nervous system at all. The cells of these early animals could sense their environment directly, and could send signals directly to neighboring cells.
Millions of years later, those signals and receptors became the raw material for the nervous system. But its evolution, according to Moroz, took place in two separate lineages. One led to today's ctenophores. The other led to all other animals with nervous systems—from jellyfish to us.
If there was indeed a parallel evolution with two separate lineages, the split would have happened long ago. Fossils that look a lot like modern-day ctenophores date back some 550 million years, making them among the oldest traces of complex animal life.
But precisely how and when the comb jelly split off from other animal lineages remains controversial. To draw the animal evolutionary tree, Moroz and his colleagues analyzed the similarity of DNA in different species. According to the authors, ctenophores belong to a lineage all their own that split off from the others at the tree's base.
Comb jellies, like this one at Monterey Bay Aquarium, California, are missing many genes considered essential for the development and function of neurons.
PHOTOGRAPH BY GEORGE GRALL, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CREATIVE
In finding that relationship, the new paper confirms the findings of a team led by Andy Baxevanis, head of the Computational Genomics Unit at the National Human Genome Research Institute, who arrived at a similar conclusion in December after sequencing the genome of another ctenophore species, the American comb jelly (Mnemiopsis leidyi). "You couldn't ask for a better outcome," he said about Moroz's research. "It really shakes up how we think animal complexity evolved."
Gert Woerheide, an evolutionary geobiologist at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich, who was not involved in the research, agreed that Moroz and his colleagues have made a thorough case for their revised view of brain evolution. "I think, in this respect, this is a great paper," he said.
But in terms of the actual shape of the animal family tree, Woerheide is less convinced. He isn't sure that comb jellies branched off at the base of the tree, he said; sponges, for example, might have branched off first. In Woerheide's view, the exact reconstruction of the tree reaching so far back in evolutionary history remains an open question.
No matter how the nervous systems of comb jellies evolved, though, everyone agrees that they are weird—and thus worth getting to know better. As Casey Dunn, an evolutionary biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, who was not involved in the research, pointed out, comb jellies are turning out to be "even more different from other animals than had previously been appreciated
:ty:
godbless us all always
Comment on This Story
:smoke: is this the earth that we are talking about where almost every part of it is field of water
:read:
"It's a paradox," said Leonid Moroz, a neurobiologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville and lead author of a paper in today's Nature about the biology of the comb jelly nervous system. "These are animals with a complex nervous system, but they basically use a completely different chemical language" from every other animal. "You have to explain it one way or another."
The way Moroz explains it is with an evolutionary scenario—one that's at odds with traditional accounts of animal evolution.
Moroz and his colleagues have been studying comb jellies, whose scientific name is ctenophores (pronounced TEN-o-fors), for many years, beginning with the sequencing of the genome of one species, the Pacific sea gooseberry, in 2007. The sea gooseberry has 19,523 genes, about the same number as are found in the human genome.
The scientists enlarged their library to the genes of ten other species of comb jelly (out of the 150 or so species known to exist) and compared them to the analogous genes in other animals. And when they looked at the genes involved in the nervous system, they found that many considered essential for the development and function of neurons were simply missing in the comb jelly.
Some of those missing genes are involved in building neurons in embryos. The cells in any animal start out in the embryo as stem cells, looking pretty much identical to one another and capable of turning into any particular type of cell. Only later in embryonic development do some stem cells switch on specific genes that transform them into neurons. This process is much the same in humans as it is in flies, slugs, and just about every other animal with a nervous system.
But comb jellies, Moroz and his colleagues found, lack those neuron-building genes altogether. Which means that comb jelly embryos must build their neurons from a different set of instructions—instructions no one yet understands.
Nor do comb jellies use the standard complement of neurotransmitters found in other animals, the scientists found. The genes for most of the neurotransmitters in other animals are either missing or silent in the comb jelly—except for one, the gene for the neurotransmitter glutamate. No wonder Moroz likes to call these creatures "aliens of the sea."
Instead of the typical
Rewriting Evolutionary History
The unique nature of the comb jelly nervous system led the Florida scientists to hypothesize a new evolutionary history for these marine animals, which they laid out in the Nature paper. The earliest animals, according to this new theory, had no nervous system at all. The cells of these early animals could sense their environment directly, and could send signals directly to neighboring cells.
Millions of years later, those signals and receptors became the raw material for the nervous system. But its evolution, according to Moroz, took place in two separate lineages. One led to today's ctenophores. The other led to all other animals with nervous systems—from jellyfish to us.
If there was indeed a parallel evolution with two separate lineages, the split would have happened long ago. Fossils that look a lot like modern-day ctenophores date back some 550 million years, making them among the oldest traces of complex animal life.
But precisely how and when the comb jelly split off from other animal lineages remains controversial. To draw the animal evolutionary tree, Moroz and his colleagues analyzed the similarity of DNA in different species. According to the authors, ctenophores belong to a lineage all their own that split off from the others at the tree's base.
Comb jellies, like this one at Monterey Bay Aquarium, California, are missing many genes considered essential for the development and function of neurons.
PHOTOGRAPH BY GEORGE GRALL, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CREATIVE
In finding that relationship, the new paper confirms the findings of a team led by Andy Baxevanis, head of the Computational Genomics Unit at the National Human Genome Research Institute, who arrived at a similar conclusion in December after sequencing the genome of another ctenophore species, the American comb jelly (Mnemiopsis leidyi). "You couldn't ask for a better outcome," he said about Moroz's research. "It really shakes up how we think animal complexity evolved."
But in terms of the actual shape of the animal family tree, Woerheide is less convinced. He isn't sure that comb jellies branched off at the base of the tree, he said; sponges, for example, might have branched off first. In Woerheide's view, the exact reconstruction of the tree reaching so far back in evolutionary history remains an open question.
No matter how the nervous systems of comb jellies evolved, though, everyone agrees that they are weird—and thus worth getting to know better. As Casey Dunn, an evolutionary biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, who was not involved in the research, pointed out, comb jellies are turning out to be "even more different from other animals than had previously been appreciated
:ty:
godbless us all always
Comment on This Story
just dont call coz we'll call you and remember always to have a right manner of observation with understanding and wisdom in the holy scriptures with proper discipline and may the help of the holy spirit guide us
in the truth :8)
:read:
Hebrews 10:5
Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me;
6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”
8 When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in c sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law),
9 then he added, d “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He abolishes the first in order to establish the second
:ty:
godbless us all always
Last edited:
Np he just took the first civilization the bible refers to and read the ancient writings they left some 5,000 of them. Seems they were pretty advanced had the planets all named with the size and positions clearly marked, something we hadn't been able to do until the last 150 years. But hey he's imperfect and makes observations and assumptions. lol
lol I have only posited the ice age as a possible source of the flood. I have not gone into details on the matter. I don't think anyone knows,
but the idea of an ice age around 2000 bc is nonsense. there is no proof whatsoever.
I agree that no one knows the details.
what I'm thinking at this time is that it's futile to try to figure out ways to combine mainstream science with the stories in genesis.
I think it's best to say they were miracles, so mainstream science doesn't apply.
Or, they are myths, so again mainstream science doesn't apply... just look for the spiritual truths.
Likely the ice age occurred after the flood. The earth cooled after the flood briefly as a result of the volcanic action that accompanied the fountains of the deep bringing up the waters from under the earth. It is speculated that the contents split up and became separate at the same time of the flood.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
For the cause of Christ
Roger
the dating of an ice age has implications for how one interprets the scriptures, I think.
this article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
and expecially this graph from the article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
indicate an ice age about 10,000 years ago.
(not saying I agree with that date, just giving an example)
I think a "plain reading" of the genesis stories would lead one to date the earth at about 6,000 years old.
so, I think there are issues worth exploring... if the spirit so leads one to explore them
Plain reading is often wrong. For example, genealogies in Genesis dont need to be complete (it was common to list only the most important names) or it does not need to be a genealogy at all (theories that these are more some kind of subscription of the witnesses/authors of the texts etc).
If science proved something, we should leave plain reading and start searching how the book of nature matches the book of Bible.
T
Tintin
Guest
A fallen nature that's interpreted by largely a secular humanist society of fallible scientists over God and His Word? Righteo then! Pffffftttttt.
1. Most of mathematics, physics, information technology etc is from a science society. If "secular humanist society" says that 2+2=4, I am ok with it.
If it is provable, its truth.
2. Its not "science over God", its putting science and Gods Word together.
So what?
Mt St Helens recent eruption adequately demonstrated how quickly some of the evidences presumed to take centuries to occur in fact happened in only years.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
While genealogies may be unimportant for some streams of investigation, they are crucial for others. The genealogies in the Bible are not there to put us to sleep. They are an accurate record of the lineage of Jesus Himself. This is critical to establish His identity as not only the direct descendant of David, but of Adam. This in turn is important, because only a descendant of Adam can both take on human flesh and redeem it by paying the blood sacrifice for sin. The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin, because the sin was not theirs. I won't attempt a complete exegesis of this idea here; rather I bring this up to show that incomplete or "witness" genealogies would not be sufficient for this doctrine.
So what?
There are still thousands and milions of proofs that universe is old, from astronomy to human genom.