Biblical predictions and checking data

npetreley · #51 30th May 2002, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by chickenman
you missed the point entirely npeterly- you need a new brain, a new liver, a new heart as well- where is your documented evidence that cell division occurs at a rate adequate enough to maintain these organs? Don't bother looking because you won't find any

Go back and read the whole thread. We already covered that.

On second thought, my memory for handles and names is so poor, for all I know it may have been you who raised these objections before. If that's the case, don't bother reading the whole thread because if you didn't understand or agree with the answers then, you won't now.

chickenman · #52 30th May 2002, 01:19 AM

oh sorry, I see, so anecdotal evidence of people getting a third set of teeth could be possible evidence that people once lived 900 years old, but you have yet to explain about all the other things that would need to regenerate for this to happen - fair enough

npetreley · #53 30th May 2002, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by chickenman
oh sorry, I see, so anecdotal evidence of people getting a third set of teeth could be possible evidence that people once lived 900 years old, but you have yet to explain about all the other things that would need to regenerate for this to happen - fair enough

Well, I looked back and saw that it WAS you. You're the person who thinks the only way this can work is if cells can survive for 900 years, despite the fact that we magically live 70 year or more with cells in our bodies that routinely die in hours, days or months. You're the person to whom I responded about how a pre-flood environment may not have caused as much continual cell damage as the current environment.

Okay, so I guess that explanation I have yet to produce but managed to go back in time and post earlier wasn't enough for you.

From an earlier post:

and the fact remains that the cells most vital to human existence (neurons) stop dividing after adolescence (except olfactory neurons)

I think you're confusing cell division with cell growth. Cells do not stop dividing at adolescence, they simply shift out of "growth mode." They keep dividing.

The question is, why do we age the way we do now if we were designed to live 900+ years? There are several possible answers, but we can't test any of them because we don't have the same pre-flood environment in which to test our theories.

The one theory that you'll find most in discussions like these is that the pre-flood environment was not as hostile to cells. I think that's probably true.

But if you read enough of those anecdotal accounts of people who get a third set of teeth, you'll see there's another factor that may have been involved. Many of the people who get new teeth also grow new hair (the same color it was before they went gray and it fell out), get a better complexion, and show other signs of rejuvenation.

Are those just anomalies, or are they related to getting the third set of teeth? I don't know. But let's do something the evolutionists love to do -- speculate.

In other words, assume for a moment that BOTH of the above theories are true -- that the pre-flood environment was more hostile to cells, thus accelerating aging, AND there is the possibility that we would all go through some natural rejuvinating endocrinology changes at some point after 100 years old if we simply lived in an environment that allowed us to get that far in good condition. Sounds to me like that would be evidence that fits the prediction that we were designed to live 900+ years.

Unlike the evolutionists, however, I still consider speculation to be speculation, and theories to be theories. Until we can reproduce the process, or understand all the environmental factors and the pre-programming in the human genome to confirm the theory, it will remain a theory.

chickenman · #54 30th May 2002, 02:36 AM

well see, the fact is, neurons do not keep dividing after adolescence (with the exception of some cells in the hypothalamus and olfactory neurons) this is why scientists are currently researching stem cells, and have tried stem cell implantations to rejuvenate regions of the brain where neurons have died. The reason they have to look for stem cells to do this is because normal neurons do NOT regenerate - once you lose them, they are gone. I don't know what you are talking about with respect to "growth mode" the reason the brain gets bigger between birth and adolescence is due to cell division, not because neurons get bigger.

RufusAtticus · #55 30th May 2002, 03:01 AM

So the baby teeth form early, as one would expect. The first permanent molars begin calcifictaion [sic] at birth, but the rest of the teeth do not begin calcifying until 2 to 2 1/2 years of age (toddler). In other words, they are not present in X-rays of babies because they haven't formed yet.

Read that again, Nick. It's referring to the crowns, which form only part of a tooth. So your conclusion and critique are erroneous. If you look carefully at figure titled "Development of the Deciduous Dentition" you will notice that the 6 month old (baby) shows tooth-buds for its permanent teeth.

Based on your link, I would guess that the third set of teeth behave just like the first and second. They form in advance of when they emerge (duh). How far in advance seems to depend on which kinds of teeth, and when the "target date" is for emerging. Your link demonstrates clearly that there is no evidence that the teeth must have formed 100 years in advance of when they will emerge. Quite the contrary, it plainly says that most permanent teeth don't start to calcify until you hit 2 to 2 1/2 years old, which is about 3-5 years before the child cuts those teeth.

But that's not how development works. Everything is laid out in fetal and early childhood development. That's how our bodies work. An easy example is female reproduction. A woman has no use for a uterus or a birth canal until she hits puberty, yet she is born with them. Your argument would have us expectation a girl to lack most of her internal reproductive organs until she is about seven. (Actually, the way some people act, she shouldn't get them until she is engaged.) Even more surprising is that she is born with every single ova she will ever release in her lifetime. According to Petreley’s Rule of Development, she should not even produce one until the day before she ovulates.

Once again Nick, can you explain the biology and development of this mythic third set of teeth. Specifically why we shouldn't expect to find any evidence for them until every other organ in the body is deteriorating.

npetreley · #56 30th May 2002, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by chickenman
well see, the fact is, neurons do not keep dividing after adolescence

Um. That's REALLY interesting. It really is.

Now, unless you're saying we all die when we're 16, I don't see your point.

I wish I could recall the term for that "growth mode", but I can't. G-something seems to ring a bell but it's been too long.

npetreley · #57 30th May 2002, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

But that's not how development works. Everything is laid out in fetal and early childhood development. That's how our bodies work. An easy example is female reproduction. A woman has no use for a uterus or a birth canal until she hits puberty, yet she is born with them. Your argument would have us expectation a girl to lack most of her internal reproductive organs until she is about seven.

ROFL!!!

No, your argument is that the first egg has to form and then sit there and wait until the girl hits puberty.

No no no -- I got that wrong.

Your argument is that ALL THE EGGS HER BODY WILL EVER PRODUCE IN HER ENTIRE LIFETIME have to be in some partial state of formation when she's a baby, otherwise she'll never form them.

RufusAtticus · #58 30th May 2002, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by npetreley
No, your argument is that the first egg has to form and then sit there and wait until the girl hits puberty.

My argument is that that does happen, as a consequence of human development. Now, Nick, will you explain the biology and development of this mythic third set of teeth. Specifically why we shouldn't expect to find any evidence for them until every other organ in the body is deteriorating.

LewisWildermuth · #59 30th May 2002, 04:22 AM

Neperteley...

Crack open a basic college biology book... You will find that all the eggs that a woman will ever have are made before birth... Sperm is a different story though.

Please do a little bit of study before you say something is stupid, otherwise it will be you that looks stupid when you speak. This goes for all things that you do in life.

Look at it this way...
If someone whe had never even bothered reading the bible were to make ofhand comments about it that were so easily proved wrong just by opening the book you would find there ignorance on the subject laghable would you not?

Your basic ignorance of biology (you don't have to believe in evolution to study boilogy either.) is making you and the religion you claim to represent look bad.

npetreley · #60 30th May 2002, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

Read that again, Nick. It's referring to the crowns, which form only part of a tooth.

You're right. Here's what it says, exactly:

By the time the deciduous teeth have fully erupted (two to two and one half years of age), cacification of the crowns of permanent teeth is under way. First permanent molars have begun cacification at the time of birth.

It doesn't actually say when the calcification for all the permanent begin. It only says the molars have begun calcification at birth.

Regardless, your whole premise is hilariously flawed. Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that I'm right that we were designed to live 900+ years, and that we would cut new teeth approximately every 100 years or so.

That means we could be cutting our 11th set of teeth on or about our 900th birthday.

According to you, the only way that would be possible is if we were born with 11 sets of teeth in our jaws all lined up and waiting for their turns to emerge at the right times. Indeed, the poor fellow who got 5 sets of teeth MUST have had them all lined up waiting to emerge back when he was a baby, otherwise he must be lying about having gotten 5 sets of teeth.

Why?

And here's the brilliant logic behind your whole argument: It must work that way, only that way, and could not possibly work any other way because...you say so.

And as evidence that you are right, you present the fact that our first set of permanent teeth are already forming 5 years before we get them. The fact that the next set emerges 100 years later is totally irrelevant -- these teeth MUST be formed and ready to go 100 years prior to that -- when we were a baby -- or else they can't possibly exist.

And the scientific evidence that teeth you get 100 years later must exist when you're a baby is...you say so.

Well, gosh, if you say so, it must be true. End of argument.