Biblical predictions and checking data

Evolutionists love to say that they can confirm the truth of evolution by creating a hypothesis in the form of a prediction, and then checking to see if the prediction is true. IMO this whole process can be flawed in many respects, but it can also be perfectly valid. If it CAN be perfectly valid, then it ought to work for creation, as well, when you add enough safety checks in order to demonstrate that it is perfectly valid.

Anyone care to offer a prediction, and then an observation?

Here's an example of a prediction based on information from the Bible. The lifespan of people before the flood was up to and above 900 years. Even if you eliminate cavities, our teeth tend to wear down, rot, or break over a period of about 100 years. If God designed us to live up to 900 years or more, one would expect that God would have either designed our teeth to be stronger or designed us to get new teeth.

As it turns out, people who live well past the age of 100 DO actually get a new set of teeth. Some people even get them as young as their 80s.

So the prediction is confirmed by the evidence.

I actually believe there is some validity to the above.

But I do not believe the next prediction or observation is necessarily true (although I suppose anything is possible). I'm simply going to present it to demonstrate a point.

Let me warn you that I'm just making this up as I go, right now, so it will not be very convincing. But if I took the time and effort to surround this prediction with enough jargon and double-talk, I'd bet I could convince a LOT of people that the following makes perfect sense. That's my point -- it is so easy to be self deceived and deceive others when you are so focused on your conclusions, that you end up beingguided more by your imagination than by the facts.

If we were designed to live 900 years, one would expect to find unexplainable anomalies in our understanding of the human body, becase we're only seeing a small snapshot of what the body was designed to do or handle.

And that is exactly the case. As it turns out, we only use a fraction of the memory capabilities of our brains. If we lived to 900 years or more, we would use most of the remainder. Obviously our brains were designed for longer lives.

In addition, if you extrapolate the accumulation of certain minerals in the human body over 100 years to a longer lifespan, the body would become poisoned by these minerals at age 300. Our body has no known means of eliminating these minerals. However, it is my hypothesis that the appendix is an organ that is designed to "wake up" every 300 years and eliminate these toxic minerals.
 
Ok, I'll bite. You have made a couple of minor predictions from your hypothesis of a once longer human lifespan. Lets see how they pan out.
As it turns out, people who live well past the age of 100 DO actually get a new set of teeth. Some people even get them as young as their 80s.

How strong is the evidence? How many times has this been observed in the medical literature? How many times in the 20th or 21st centuries? Is there corroboration of these observations?

And that is exactly the case. As it turns out, we only use a fraction of the memory capabilities of our brains. If we lived to 900 years or more, we would use most of the remainder. Obviously our brains were designed for longer lives.

What is the evidence that we use only a fraction of the memory capabilities of our brains? What fraction (i.e. ~10%, ~20%, etc..)? References please.

Last thing, your hypothesis requires one much stronger prediction: that some mechanism has decreased our natural life span since the time of Noah. Can you identify it? Can you demonstrate its operation? Your hypothesis, if sound, could have a major impact on medical studies of aging and longevity. I have seen a recent report of research that shows there is no natural limit to human life-spans, and that death of old age is a result of accumulated failures due to fatigue or disease in our vital organs. Your hypothesis, if correct, could open up whole new avenues in longevity research. How much more evidence can you come up with for it?
 
Upvote 0
But if I took the time and effort to surround this prediction with enough jargon and double-talk, I'd bet I could convince a LOT of people that the following makes perfect sense. That's my point -- it is so easy to be self deceived and deceive others when you are so focused on your conclusions, that you end up beingguided more by your imagination than by the facts.

Let me remind you that you that you still have some work to do in the thread for Nick , before you continue asserting that this kind of thing is what guides evoution research!
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by npetreley

Here's an example of a prediction based on information from the Bible. The lifespan of people before the flood was up to and above 900 years.

As it turns out, people who live well past the age of 100 DO actually get a new set of teeth. Some people even get them as young as their 80s.


If we were designed to live 900 years, one would expect to find unexplainable anomalies in our understanding of the human body, becase we're only seeing a small snapshot of what the body was designed to do or handle.

And that is exactly the case. As it turns out, we only use a fraction of the memory capabilities of our brains. If we lived to 900 years or more, we would use most of the remainder. Obviously our brains were designed for longer lives.


Nick, this is great. This is just how scientists work. I don't know much about your tooth example. As I recall from the last time you presented this it was not clear if there have been any examples in the last 50 years or so, but I could be wrong. Anyway, let's say it is true. It could indeed be evidence that we once lived longer and needed a third set of teeth. And if we only use a small portion of our brain which I am not sure about either but if true could also be evidence that our life spans were once longer. The next thing we have to look for though is some sort of mechanism of aging that can be turned on, off and adjusted. I don't think the current state of research in aging has progressed this far -- any other opinions?

Also, are there any other things we could look for if people live longer in the past. Well, assuming the reproductive life was also longer you would see a rapid rise in population in the time following Noah. There should be many many cites founded in a short period of time and then the number decrease and the population drop and the number of cities drop and the number of abondoned cities increase. This should start in one area (where the Ark landed) and then spread out from there.

How about you apply this same thought process to the Ark story in general?
 
Upvote 0

chickenman

evil unamerican
May 8, 2002
1,376
7
41
Visit site
✟9,874.00
Most cells in the human body undergo a finite number of divisions, taking that into account and the amount of damage a cell recieves from free radicals and oxidation - i'd say its highly unlikely anybody has ever lived to be 900 years old. A new set of teeth is all very well and good, but you also need new neurons, new heart cells etc.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Ok, I'll bite. You have made a couple of minor predictions from your hypothesis of a once longer human lifespan. Lets see how they pan out.


How strong is the evidence? How many times has this been observed in the medical literature? How many times in the 20th or 21st centuries? Is there corroboration of these observations?

Most people never get to the age where their third set of teeth would emerge, so it's not an easy thing to measure. But it seems to be VERY common among people over 100.

A few links for you:

http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/nc/stanly/cemetery/honfamce.txt

Whitley, William "Uncle Billy"
"He cut a full third set of teeth"
December 1775 to 4-4-1890

http://www.rootsweb.com/~iaguthri/history/johnpat.html

These are some of the words that Great Grandpa John said the day he turned 101: [...] Heck, I even was given by the Lord a third set of teeth!

http://www.northwilts.gov.uk/nwdctrial2.nsf/DocLkup/CIP+Guided+Tour+of+Corsham?OpenDocument

Towards the church you will find the famous flat-stone grave of Sarah Jarvis who died at the age of 107 in 1753 having grown a third set of teeth!

What is the evidence that we use only a fraction of the memory capabilities of our brains? What fraction (i.e. ~10%, ~20%, etc..)? References please.

I could give you LOTs of references. Just do a Google search for "only use a fraction of our brain" or something similar.

It is a commonly held belieft that scientists have stated that we use only 10-15% of our brain. IMO it probably isn't true. But why worry about facts when the conclusion is made up anyway? That was part of my point.

Last thing, your hypothesis requires one much stronger prediction: that some mechanism has decreased our natural life span since the time of Noah. Can you identify it?

There are many theories about how the world might have been pre-flood and correlations between what caused the flood and what caused these destructive environmental factors to reduce our life spans. I don't know which, if any, are true. I personally find the topic fascinating, but it is not necessary to understand what happened in order to test the prediction of my hypothesis, which was my point.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by DonaldW112

Well, assuming the reproductive life was also longer you would see a rapid rise in population in the time following Noah.

Someday I'd like to see the people who think Genesis is allegory explain why Genesis documents in such detail the geneology of allegorical figures. If Adam didn't literally exist, why does the Bible tell you the age of this allegorical character when Seth was born? ;-)

But back to the topic. These people are having kids at 70-162 years old. That doesn't really tell you how long their reproductive life was, because we don't know that the Bible documents every child in the geneology. (I think we can safely assume it doesn't.) But it gives you an idea, anyway.

Remember, however, that these people are pre-flood. We might be able to find evidence of their civilizations, but I would guess (based on the most current theories of how the flood occurred) that most of them are under water now.

Here's a sample of the ages of the fathers when the kids were born: (Genesis 5, NIV)

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father [2] of Enosh. 7 And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.
9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 And after he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Altogether, Enosh lived 905 years, and then he died.
12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13 And after he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 Altogether, Kenan lived 910 years, and then he died.
15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 16 And after he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17 Altogether, Mahalalel lived 895 years, and then he died.
18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 19 And after he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 20 Altogether, Jared lived 962 years, and then he died.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by chickenman
Most cells in the human body undergo a finite number of divisions, taking that into account and the amount of damage a cell recieves from free radicals and oxidation

Exactly right. That means if people lived 900 years or more, the environment must have been much different because it couldn't have caused as much cell damage as it does now.

Assuming whatever caused the flood also caused permanent damage to our environment, the damage probably wouldn't change the environment to what it is like now in as little as a year. It must have taken some time for the disturbed environment to settle into its current state.

That leads us to our next prediction. If the damaged environment took time to settle, we would expect the life spans of people post-flood to be long, but not quite as long as pre-flood. We know that the environment eventually settled into what it is today, and we know how long the average life span is today. So we'd expect the life spans of the people post-flod to gradually get shorter until the system reached some sort of equilibrium, and people lived around 70 years (or whatever the average is now).

Anyone want to guess if the Bible reflects that pattern and fulfills the prediction accurately? ;-)
 
Upvote 0

chickenman

evil unamerican
May 8, 2002
1,376
7
41
Visit site
✟9,874.00
I think the finite limit on the age of an individual cell is probably even independant of the environment, the processes it carries out limit its life. Oxidizing agents are byproducts of natural cell processes - I'd be very surprised if anyone could create the an environment that would let a cell survive for 900 years - I think you're going to have to go back to a supernatural explanation, I don't think science supports 900 year old people
 
Upvote 0
Nick,

Did you know that x-rays of babies will show their adult teeth, or atleast the precursors of them? Your hypothesis should be easily supported by such studies. Can you point us to some scientific literature showing that it is fairly common to have have a third set of teeth in there just waiting to come out when we get old enough? I'm going to the dentist soon, and I will ask him to check for my third set of teeth.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Nick,

Did you know that x-rays of babies will show their adult teeth, or atleast the precursors of them?

Source, please?

Your hypothesis should be easily supported by such studies.

Why? Because you say so?

Is it not possible that the body forms them closer to when they emerge? After all, you start to get your adult teeth at about 5 years old. So by your own reasoning, if you get your third set at age 105, you won't see them in X-rays until you're about 100 years old.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by chickenman
I think the finite limit on the age of an individual cell is probably even independant of the environment, the processes it carries out limit its life.

Source? Can you demonstrate that the age of a cell is not affected by damage from cosmic radiation, for example? (good luck)

I'd be very surprised if anyone could create the an environment that would let a cell survive for 900 years

Yes, that would be a neat trick, since some types of normal cells in the human body live only hours. Blood cells live about 4 months, so that's a little better. But getting them to live 900 years would be difficult to imagine. You've got me there. I guess I'll have to abandon the whole idea.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by npetreley
Source, please?

X-Ray Evidence

Is it not possible that the body forms them closer to when they emerge? After all, you start to get your adult teeth at about 5 years old. So by your own reasoning, if you get your third set at age 105, you won't see them in X-rays until you're about 100 years old.

The precursors of both baby and adult teeth are laid down during fetal development, along with everything else in your body. If a third set of teeth were standard in humans, then something should appear on x-rays or in our anatomy. You are going to have to work pretty hard to demonstrate that third sets of teeth somehow bypass the requirements of human development.
 
Upvote 0

chickenman

evil unamerican
May 8, 2002
1,376
7
41
Visit site
✟9,874.00
I never said that the environment didn't affect sell survival, I just said that environment alone is not the only thing which causes cell damage. The biochemical pathways in a cell can create free radicals which damage the cell - shielding a cell from the environment is not going to allow it to survive for 900 years - and the fact remains that the cells most vital to human existence (neurons) stop dividing after adolescence (except olfactory neurons)
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Ahhh The third set of teeth! Iknow a little about this first hand because I had them. :D

According to my dentist, yes this can happen, a lot of people but no where near a majority of people have "extra" tooth buds form at some point in life. I had about six removed when I was 14, the same time I had my wisdom teeth pulled. I know that seems young to have wisdom teeth pulled but mine were forming and impacting the other teeth worse than most people in their 20's the extra teeth were destroying the roots of the permanent teeth they were under too. That cost over 5000$ in 1985 dollars, it's much more now.

One last one formed and actualy did erupt from the gum pointing sideways toward my tounge. I had it pulled shortly there after when I was 26.

Now the problem with these extra teeth is that they rarely form uniformly in the mouth, mine sure didn't. They are often horribly deformed when they do erupt and are not as strong or usable as your permanent teeth. Another problem is that even if they were halfway well formed (my last one looked like a decent bicuspid but was in the premolar area of my mouth) the same process that loosens your baby teeth never happens again so if there are teeth in the way like mone still were they impact the roots of your permanent teeth (trust me this hurts like a constant migrane that never goes away until they are removed) and destroy both themselved and the permanent teeth.

Now for most people, the extra teeth seem to stop growing and often dissolve after time, I was just not one of those lucky people. I suppose if I was 80 to 100 and had lost my permanent teeth already and few even badly deformed teeth popped back in would be neat. But in most people, like myself, where they don't dissolve early in formation they will hurt like heck, cost you thousands in dental costs to remove before they cause permanent damage if you catch them in time.

A friend that had them but the dentist failed to notice them lost her job because of an unkown illness that left her constantly sick and with constant migrains. It cost her tens of thousands in cat scans of the brain and doctors bills as they tried to find out what was wrong. It was too late when they finnaly pinpointed the problem and she lost four permanent teeth because the extra teeth and they had ground eachother to dust in her gums.

No they are not a benifit but a problem for most people in whom they continue to grow.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Originally posted by npetreley
Most people never get to the age where their third set of teeth would emerge, so it's not an easy thing to measure. But it seems to be VERY common among people over 100.

A few links for you:
(snipped)

Wow, that's very convincing!

So you have a couple of anectodal mentions that are decades old and all of a sudden you proclaim third sets of teeth are "VERY common".

I show you examples from the peer-reviewed literature of bacteria involving novel functions and you dismiss it with a wave of your hand.

It's amazing (and rather pathetic) what a double standard you have.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by npetreley

Most people never get to the age where their third set of teeth would emerge, so it's not an easy thing to measure. But it seems to be VERY common among people over 100.

With 50,000 of them living in the United States today surely you can give me some examples from the medical literature instead of folk lore.


Only one from the 20th century? A quote about a man who could just as well have been making a joke about his dentures? Nothing substantive?

You would think the New England Centenarian Study done by Boston U. School of Medicine would at least MENTION something like this somewhere?

http://www.bumc.bu.edu/Departments/PageMain.asp?Page=5924&DepartmentID=361

On brain use:

I could give you LOTs of references. Just do a Google search for "only use a fraction of our brain" or something similar.

Ok, I did. Turns out the premise of your argument is wrong.
http://cisar.org/trn0342.htm
http://www.theness.com/articles/brain-nejs0201.html

Your hypotheses aren't checking out very well.

It is a commonly held belieft that scientists have stated that we use only 10-15% of our brain. IMO it probably isn't true. But why worry about facts when the conclusion is made up anyway? That was part of my point.

If that was your point, then you still have to do some work in your thread . There is your opportunity to back up your "point" with some real life facts.

There are many theories about how the world might have been pre-flood and correlations between what caused the flood and what caused these destructive environmental factors to reduce our life spans. I don't know which, if any, are true. I personally find the topic fascinating, but it is not necessary to understand what happened in order to test the prediction of my hypothesis, which was my point.

Of course not. If you don't want to rigorously examine your hypothesis, you can leave it with a couple of pieces of weak prediction (that turned out wrong), and ignore its potential for strong prediction.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Ahhh The third set of teeth! Iknow a little about this first hand because I had them. :D


Lewis, Nick isn't talking about supernumerary teeth. He is talking about a whole 3rd set that you have to wait until your 100th birthday for. You can't have them yet because you are too young.
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
hey are one in the same, I have never seen any real report of a true set of third teeth just late groth super numerary. Like my last one and by now I might have even more growing.

I need to make another dentist appointment, it's been toomany years...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Originally posted by npetreley




Remember, however, that these people are pre-flood. We might be able to find evidence of their civilizations, but I would guess (based on the most current theories of how the flood occurred) that most of them are under water now.

I am not talking pre-flood. I believe Noah lived to be quite old as well, correct? We should be able to see this population expansion and then contraction in post-flood records. Also, the pre-flood records should be easy to find even if mostly under water. All pre-flood records should be under the very thick sediment section representing the flood. This sediment should be world-wide and contain fossils from all "kinds". Isn't this what you would predict from the flood? It is too bad we have not found a layer like this. Your thought process is exactly right, please try making prediction based on the flood.

To the other posters here. I don't think we should harp on Nick's tooth example. I think we should encourage him to use this thought process to examine all aspects of the Genesis story. While you might find a couple of things that might be evidence for some things in Genesis, I think he would quickly see that many things directly contradict the Genesis account.
 
Upvote 0