We already know that all life is cerated [sic] from inanimate elements - don't we? We just don't know how the first replicating molecules arose. Once that question is answered (and, rest assured, it will be answered within the next century . . . For your next post, please explain how human biology permitted Methuselah to live for 969 years. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.So we ask him questions such as:
Besides, what do you know about senescence and aging anyway? Are you conversant in topics like the Hayflick limit, telomerase and telomere shortening, oxidative stress, free radicals like reactive oxygen species (e.g. superoxides, hydroxyls) and mitochondrial damage (e.g. such as in the electron transport chain), pharmaceuticals which attempt to mimic caloric restriction (e.g. 2-deoxyglucose which blocks glucose metabolism), etc.?The Atheist Missionary admits:
Gentlemen, first of all, let me make it clear that I (like probably 99% of those who visit this site) am not a professional biologist . . . Please don't embarass yourself by naming scientists who are engaged studying how the aging process might be prolonged or by regaling me with biological topics you already know that I am not conversant with.I'd suggest The Atheist Missionary ponder Prov 16:18 before he opens his mouth again.
(Source.)
I've seen Atheist Missionary post on other blogs. His M.O. seems to be the same:
ReplyDelete1. He quotes from an neo-Darwinian ideologue.
2. Instead of substance, he responds to rebuttals with invective, caricature, and ad hominem, frequently moving the goal posts.
3. He closes with a pithy parting shot, replete with the pathological hurled elephant, "like shooting fish in a barrel..."
If this is the best he can do, and the best his side has to offer, then it's little wonder why atheists are so few in number.
The Atheist Missionary said "For your next post, please explain how human biology permitted Methuselah to live for 969 years."
ReplyDeleteSure. Just as soon as you tell us how long 77 units of measurement is (given that different cultures throughout time use the same term for different units of measurement).
The Atheist Missionary said "Are you conversant in topics like the Hayflick limit, telomerase and telomere shortening, oxidative stress, free radicals like reactive oxygen species (e.g. superoxides, hydroxyls) and mitochondrial damage (e.g. such as in the electron transport chain), pharmaceuticals which attempt to mimic caloric restriction (e.g. 2-deoxyglucose which blocks glucose metabolism), etc.?"
ReplyDeleteAtheist, speaking of telomerase and telomere shortening (in chromosome replication, this is akin to not painting a whole floor, because you paint yourself into a corner) , you do know that the same people who discovered telomerase shortening, also proved that when the end of the chromosome was 'repaired', no ageing occurred, right?
This means that under two conditions eternal life (of a cell) is possible; when there is no need to replicate chromosomes (because no telomerase shortening occurs), and if chromosome replications contains some process of repairing the telomere.
Since humans have the ability to do this scientifically, what makes you think God could not do this naturally?
(Your question isn't much of a challenge to our faith, given that your example scientifically proves cells that don't age are possible.)
This has to be one of the most entertaining blogs around. Keep it up. :-)
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if I can post here again. I've previously been warned that my posts will be deleted "if you don't actually begin to interact with the arguments that have been presented and only continually spout off your stupid one-liners".
ReplyDeleteMy point is that it is silly and intellectually childish to suggest that Methuselah lived for 969 years. Heck, a plastic 6 pack ring will disintegrate in only 450 years.
Your response is to ask for my familiarity with a variety of biological topics. This is no different than you suggesting that pigs can fly and, when I scoff, you ask for my credentials in aerodynamics.
When pressed (and people are free to review the previous thread), I cited an authority which suggested that "the maximum potential [human] lifespan ... has remained unchanged at around 95 years for the past 100,000 years". I then asked you to name one (1) PH.D. expert in the natural sciences who has written one (1) peer reviewed paper to suggest that the human lifespan has ever exceeded, say, more than 150 years?
You can't answer this simple request and your sophistry can't hide that fact. Anyone reading these threads can see that.
Proverbs 16:18?
ReplyDeleteProud of what?
THE ATHEIST MISSIONARY SAID:
ReplyDelete"My point is that it is silly and intellectually childish to suggest that Methuselah lived for 969 years. Heck, a plastic 6 pack ring will disintegrate in only 450 years."
That's bad new for the redwoods and sequoia.
The Atheist Missionary said...
ReplyDelete"This is no different than you suggesting that pigs can fly..."
Another argument from analogy minus the argument. All you do is strike a pose, projecting the image of rationality. But you can't actually make a reasoned case for your position.
Steve, I'm not making an argument. I'm making an assertion: human beings have never (ever, anywhere, at any time) lived to be older than 150. Not even once.
ReplyDeleteAre you aware (or is anyone else aware) of authority to the contrary? If your only answer is "the Bible told me so", that's fine - please just tell me.
THE ATHEIST MISSIONARY SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve, I'm not making an argument. I'm making an assertion."
Yes, I'd say that sums it up pretty well. That's been your modus operandi all along.
And that's the nice thing about being a rationalist: you never have to give reasons for what you believe. Just name it and claim it.
"human beings have never (ever, anywhere, at any time) lived to be older than 150. Not even once."
Yes, if you say so, that makes it so. Thanks for illustrating the intellectual superiority of atheism.
Thomas Parr may have lived to the age of 152.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tom_Parr
Maybe he didn't. I'm not asserting he did. I wonder if TAM is willing to demonstrate that Parr couldn't have or didn't.
The Atheist Missionary said:
ReplyDeleteMy point is that it is silly and intellectually childish to suggest that Methuselah lived for 969 years. Heck, a plastic 6 pack ring will disintegrate in only 450 years.
This is inept. What does the fact that a plastic 6 pack ring disintegrates after 450 years have to do with a human being's lifespan? Are humans made of plastic? Is The Atheist Missionary actually a plastic toy action figure like Buzz Lightyear rather than a real person?
According to many scientists, carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years, Turritopsis nutricula can theoretically live forever, etc.
Your response is to ask for my familiarity with a variety of biological topics. This is no different than you suggesting that pigs can fly and, when I scoff, you ask for my credentials in aerodynamics.
1. Your analogy is dumb. Pigs can't fly, but people (and pigs) can age. Indeed, age is a ubiquitous phenomenon. What we're arguing over is the degree to which one can age. Not age or aging in and of itself as a phenomenon.
2. "Scoffing" isn't science. If you were scientifically minded, you'd say something like since professional academic scientific and medical journals didn't exist prior to the 17th century (although arguably the 19th), it wouldn't be possible to document supercentenarian longevity in antiquity in a peer reviewed paper one way or the other.
3. No, I asked for your familiarity with a variety of biological topics directly relevant to the biology of human aging - which you brought up. After all, you originally said: "For your next post, please explain how human biology permitted Methuselah to live for 969 years."
4. However, you later say you're no biologist and admit you're ignorant about "biological topics."
So why ask us to explain how human biology permitted a longer than average lifespan given that you wouldn't understand the explanation anyway?
The truth is you're being disingenuous. You're not really looking for answers. And you wouldn't even understand the answers if we were to give them to you. Indeed, we have given you answers. That's when you've changed the subject.
Of course, now, you confess you weren't even making an argument in the first place but rather making an assertion.
In other words, you're ignorant as well as arrogant about all this.
5. Although now that you mention it, you've also brought up other "biological topics" such as when you said the following: "We already know that all life is cerated [sic] from inanimate elements - don't we? We just don't know how the first replicating molecules arose. Once that question is answered (and, rest assured, it will be answered within the next century." Care to explain to us how you're so confident about this? How you can "rest assured" that we will assuredly know how the first replicating molecules arose? Care to explain to us what you understand about DNA-mRNA-protein for starters (particularly in light of the fact that you've claimed to have read Meyer's Signature in the Cell)?
Or was this also an "assertion" that doesn't need any supporting argumentation from you? Just blindly accept it! The Atheist Missionary has spoken.
6. BTW, people should keep all this in mind when The Atheist Missionary makes allegations about others being "silly and intellectually childish."
I cited an authority which suggested that "the maximum potential [human] lifespan ... has remained unchanged at around 95 years for the past 100,000 years". I then asked you to name one (1) PH.D. expert in the natural sciences who has written one (1) peer reviewed paper to suggest that the human lifespan has ever exceeded, say, more than 150 years?
ReplyDelete1. Do you honestly think just because an article is published in an academic journal this establishes its "authority"? If so, you must be pretty naive.
2. What if I cite an article which argues the contrary, that there isn't necessarily an upper age limit, that there isn't necessarily a "maximum potential [human] lifespan"? In fact, I think I'll do just that. Here ya go:
"After the striking gains in life-expectancy of the past century and a half, it was widely predicted that further increases would slow and eventually cease as man edged nearer to the intrinsic limit of human survival. Recent experience suggests, however, that the idea of such a limit is simplistic. Forecasts of future life-expectancy are being revised upwards, late-life mortality rates are tumbling, and the upward trend in maximum life-span seems, if anything, to be getting steeper. And all this is happening before there has been time to reap any harvest from new scientific research into the ageing process. The truth is that the idea of a fixed limit to human longevity was always a little questionable but it is only now, as understanding of the ageing process improves, that the reason has become apparent. There is no mechanism that measures man’s span of time and then activates a destructive process. In fact, quite the reverse is true and nearly every system in the body does its best to preserve life."
What now? How are you going to adjudicate between the two? Which one is the "authority" here?
3. Not to mention, as I mentioned in the previous thread, the article you cited was published in 1983. Do you honestly think nothing has changed between then (1983) and now (2011) with relevance for human aging? No further work on say telomeres? No new and relevant info about how our DNA works? I guess sequencing and mapping the human genome wasn't so much as a blip on your radar? Advances in biotechnology, genetic engineering, recombinant DNA techniques, and the like inconsequential to aging? I'm surprised someone like you is so behind the times when it comes to science. Gee whiz, if I didn't know better, I'd think you were one of those ignorant Bible-bashing fundamentalist new atheist types!
4. People should notice how you've redefined your original question. Originally, you asked: "For your next post, please explain how human biology permitted Methuselah to live for 969 years."
But now you're asking: "I then asked you to name one (1) PH.D. expert in the natural sciences who has written one (1) peer reviewed paper to suggest that the human lifespan has ever exceeded, say, more than 150 years?"
The original question is quite different from your current question.
Your original question had reference to the biology of aging, which is why it's warranted that we ask you what you know about the biology of aging. (To which you replied that you're not a biologist and you're not conversant wtih "biological topics.")
You've changed the terms to suit yourself in your current question, moving from the biology of aging in general to specifically demanding we cite a single peer reviewed paper documenting evidence of someone older than 150 years old.
Yet again, once we respond to your question, you move the goalpost.
THE ATHEIST MISSIONARY SAID:
ReplyDelete"You can't answer this simple request and your sophistry can't hide that fact."
Perhaps TAM is just to dim-witted to know the difference between a simple question and a loaded question. He didn't ask a simple question; rather, he is asking a loaded question. His question prejudges what counts as evidence. So his "simple" question begs the question.
And as far as that goes, God is the best source of information there is.
The Atheist Missionary said "I'm making an assertion: human beings have never (ever, anywhere, at any time) lived to be older than 150. Not even once."
ReplyDeleteWell that's patently false. Hebrew's most certainly did, for the simple reason they measured a year, differently than you do.
You use the Sidereal Year as your basis of measurement, your calendar year (365.2422 days per year). Since at least 63 B.C. Hebrews used 360 days per year as the measure of their calendar.
Which means, while you live 150 years, a Hebrew would have lived 2 extra years.
My point to you was that we have no evidence from deep historical antiquity what calendar was used, or how a 'year' (or שנה shaneh, in Heberw) was measured, but we do have evidence that measurement has not been consistent across history as you falsely suppose.
So again, tell me how long 77 unit of measurement is, in Egyptian cubits (sacred or standard) and I'll answer your question about Methuselah. (I may even tell you about a cell that hasn't aged in a decade)
Gentlemen, I have read every single comment on this post, and quite frankly, I don't see that any of you has answered TAM's question. Attacking his character or his knowledge of biology does nothing to prove that Methuselah truly lived for 969 years.
ReplyDeleteHis sheer denial does nothing to disprove Methuselah's longevity.
ReplyDeleteHis Lordship The Gun-Toting Atheist said...
ReplyDelete"Gentlemen, I have read every single comment on this post, and quite frankly, I don't see that any of you has answered TAM's question."
Reading and reading comprehension are two different things. His inquiry was a fallacy of question-framing, as I've explained several times now. But that went over your head.
His Lordship The Gun-Toting Atheist = The Atheist Missionary
ReplyDeleteJust speculating... ;)
His Lordship The Gun-Toting Atheist wrote:
ReplyDelete"Gentlemen, I have read every single comment on this post, and quite frankly, I don't see that any of you has answered TAM's question. Attacking his character or his knowledge of biology does nothing to prove that Methuselah truly lived for 969 years."
Did you read the thread where the discussion began, which Patrick linked above? If you did, you'd see that the discussion of Methuselah's lifespan began when Atheist Missionary ignored what we had written on other issues and tried to change the subject. You'd also see that he changed his argument about Methuselah, that we made comments in response to his claims that he didn't interact with there or here, etc. If you object to our allegedly not saying enough about Methuselah, then you should object to Atheist Missionary's behavior even more. We wouldn't be discussing Methuselah to begin with if Atheist Missionary hadn't ignored what we said and attempted to change the subject. And he's ignored most of what we've said about Methuselah since then. Just how careless or dishonest do people like you and Atheist Missionary have to be to keep overlooking such things?
Atheist Missionary's behavior in this particular thread has been ridiculous from the start. In his opening sentences here, he wrote:
"I'm not sure if I can post here again. I've previously been warned that my posts will be deleted 'if you don't actually begin to interact with the arguments that have been presented and only continually spout off your stupid one-liners'."
Here's more of what Peter wrote in the other thread:
"The Atheist Missionary, if you don't actually begin to interact with the arguments that have been presented and only continually spout off your stupid one-liners, I'm going to begin deleting all your subsequent posts in this thread."
How does Atheist Missionary get from "this thread" to another thread (this one), and how does he get from the deletion of posts that don't "interact with the arguments" to the idea that he can't post anything? Or is Atheist Missionary suggesting that all he can do is "spout off his stupid one-liners"? Even if so, the "this thread" Peter was referring to wasn't this one. Why does Atheist Missionary so frequently get things wrong, even things that are so easy to understand?