Jump to content

one.opinion

Junior Member
  • Content count

    146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

23 Excellent

2 Followers

About one.opinion

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA
  1. Science Edits Embryos' Genes

    My reply was to Abby-Joy, not you. I see you missed that. For evidence of DNA editing? I would like microscopes, at the very least. Centrifuges, incubators, refrigerators, and freezers would all be good, since they are indispensable for DNA editing research. Such an advanced society would surely also have some type of locomotion more advanced than horse-drawn chariots. It's all missing. You are hanging your hypothesis on a single verse that you assume must mean what you want it to mean. I made no claim about the intelligence of the ANE culture, the technology base required for our current level of technology just took a really long time. Disney's "Monsters Inc" can be used as evidence for modern hybrid creatures, too. Don't forget about those.
  2. Science Edits Embryos' Genes

    If there were pre-Noah molecular biologists, there would be evidence of such an advanced technological society. Where are the microscopes they used, as well as all the other molecular biology tools they would have had to use. That's ok, I'm really not intending to debate this.
  3. Science Edits Embryos' Genes

    Unless you are using very different definitions than I am using, neither of these statements are correct. The DNA editing in human embryos has just been developed.
  4. Science Edits Embryos' Genes

    This is not just genetic manipulation, which indeed has been going on for decades. This is DNA editing of human embryos, a very recent development (there is zero evidence of this taking place pre-Noah).
  5. Science Edits Embryos' Genes

    There are many potential applications of the CRISPR technology that wouldn't require embryo research at all. It's a fantastic tool for basic research and a lot of benefits will be derived from it. For example, a clinical trial was approved in the summer of 2016 to allow CRISPR modification of T cells to fight HIV infection. (https://www.nature.com/news/first-crispr-clinical-trial-gets-green-light-from-us-panel-1.20137) Personally, I'd like to avoid all research on human embryos, but research scientists will always want to forge into new horizons, so I am reasonably confident that embryo editing will be something we will see in the future.
  6. Science Edits Embryos' Genes

    Of course not, God will always be on His throne. But humans have a tremendous capacity for misusing things!
  7. Science Edits Embryos' Genes

    I fear so, as well. I'm just hoping the research community will at least make a good effort to mitigate the negative aspects of the research and application.
  8. Science Edits Embryos' Genes

    This is quite concerning, and a large number of secular scientists believe so, too. Two very prominent researchers that have worked on developing this tool, Jennifer Doudna and George Church, have been very vocal in their call for the establishment of ethical discussions and guidelines. After the excitement of RNAi fizzled a little bit, I think that the CRISPR/Cas9 technology took people a little by surprise about how quickly the reality of embryonic DNA editing could take place. There is a tremendous amount of good that could be done (applications not using embryos) with the tool, but there is a tremendous amount of misuse that could also be done. Worldwide discussions need to be held and guidelines need to be put in place - quickly! One example here: http://www.nature.com/news/crispr-fixes-disease-gene-in-viable-human-embryos-1.22382
  9. Science and the Bible

    Thanks, I'd never seen this article and rather ridiculous claim before. Here is a link to the Huffington Post article, should anyone care to read it (Geisler really summed it up pretty well). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/earth-20-bad-news-for-god_b_7861528.html I appreciate Geisler's response, but I suspect it might ruffle some feathers here, as well.
  10. Science and the Bible

    While I won't go as far as claiming someone else is a fake Christian, there are certainly some posts that consistently lack in anything resembling Christian character. It would be nice for the moderators to consider such patterned behavior.
  11. I would suggest that sin corrupted flesh, not DNA editing. Do you have any evidence of prehistoric DNA editing?
  12. What kind of things do we know they could do that we cannot? How do we know these things? I think it is quite likely that if humans were editing DNA before the flood, the evidence for a previous advanced culture would be everywhere we looked. It's a considerable leap to go from "all flesh was corrupted" to "DNA editing was certainly discovered." Surely Noah and his family would have brought technology or at least knowledge of technology along with them.
  13. Christianity is incompatible with evolution

    Can you corroborate this?
  14. 6 days Creation

    I offered an explanation for how carbon-14 fluctuation can affect equilibrium and still be used for accurate dating. It was not a personal attack on your argument. Note: Carbon-14 is not used for fossil dating, it is used for dating of organic samples. Scientists believe carbon-14 dating is accurate for about 10,000 years, but not reliable much past that. Dating of fossils typically uses 87Rb/86Sr, 147Sm/143Nd, or a couple of different U/Pb radioactivity pairs. These other radioisotopes have much longer half-lives and are much more appropriate for the dating of rock samples. Again, the theory of evolution is not dependent upon accurate carbon dating.
  15. 6 days Creation

    The fluctuation in atmospheric carbon-14 explains why an equilibrium has not been reached. It does not nullify the validity of the technique. Carbon-14 dating on old tree samples is consistent with the tree-dating technique of counting growth rings. Yes, the fluctuation can affect dating, but the effect has been in the trend of making samples appear younger than they really are, not older. I should probably add that the theory of evolution is in no way dependent on carbon-14 dating. Other isotopes are used for fossil dating. It erroneous to suggest that problems with carbon-14 dating are problems with the theory of evolution.
×