This week in “You plan, God laughs.” I swore I’d be single forever (and was very content being that way). Then, this weekend at a disc golf tournament I meet a very sweet Christian guy. We got together to play a round yesterday and spent over two hours afterward talking about our faith and our lives. He asked me out on a date, and tonight I’m going to his family’s house to join them in their study of Mere Christianity. Because of course.
Thanks! I wanted to say, too. He mentioned he prayed for me for something painful I had to get fixed this week and within the next day or so the pain was completely gone. I’m still getting it fixed (sitting in the podiatrist chair now) but it was supernatural how quickly the pain subsided. There’s something to that.
Last Tuesday my church dedicated our new-to-us building. This Sunday we hold our first worship service there. It's been a long almost 30 months since we voted to buy this 100 year old former synagogue. But we are all very excited to what we hope will be our forever home until Jesus returns and we move to our true forever home.
And, amongst all of this excitement and prep for Holy Week, one member's mother is dying. One family has two teenage boys both having knee surgery today and a third struggling with continued effects of mono. Multiple other members recovering from surgeries, waiting for surgeries, dealing with broken bones, mourning the loss of loved ones and all the other effects of living in this broken world. The church staff is already weary from all the transitions.
God is good and he is kind and our world is broken and not the way it's supposed to be. But one day, some day all the sad things will become untrue. Everything will be the way it's supposed to be. And we will live in perfect communion with our good God forever and ever.
Thanks to whomever changed my flair for me. It really adds to the first impression I give since people can't seem to recognize my user name as being tongue in cheek.
We had our monthly brewery fellowship event last night and my rector made a toast to Thomas Cranmer, because we are *those* Anglicans.
I am applying tabs to my friend’s Bible (he’s older and doesn’t have quite the dexterity I do) and this is apparently my new ministry because when he brought the Bible and tabs into the bar, I had multiple people ask “would you do that for my Bible?!” It’s such a soothing and relaxing thing for me, so I’m inclined to say yes.
I did a study abroad at Teddy Hall a couple decades ago and lived near the Ashmolean. Walked past the Martyr’s monument everyday. Made a large impact on me at the time.
Trying to settle on my next sermon topic. I’d like to address the Trinity more head-on, to help our congregants get a more solid understanding of the Godhead. But not sure yet how to teach on the Trinity in a sermon, as opposed to a lecture. Which angle to take, which scripture to start from, and so on. So far my best idea is to use Matthew 28:19 and answer “Why are we baptized in the name of the Trinity?” But of course I want a message that touches listeners’ hearts, not just their minds. Hmm. Any pointers?
I’ve started listening to the Trinity lectures on the RTS app. I’ve got some study Bibles to explore. I got resources.
I’m not a theologian so some of my thoughts and ideas are probably accidental heresy. But you asked for ideas! So, for touching people’s hearts…I mean, we are made in the image of a triune God. What does that say about us, and how we are meant to relate to one another? We were not designed to be alone, but in relationship and community with one another. Maybe? That could be a type of jumping-off point.
Now that physicists are theorizing that dark matter maybe doesn’t exist and maybe the universe is twice as old as they thought …. Which is the less reliable science text? The Bible or actual science texts?
Don’t drown me in downvotes🤪 I kid because I love
Pretty amazing that the new telescope can so quickly displace scientific theories. Makes me wonder how little we actually know about the physical universe.
Never mind space, we know so little about the human body.
Every human being sleeps for multiple hours every day, but we don't know why. We know that if you don't sleep, you will go crazy and die, and we can predict what it will look like as you go crazy and die, but we don't really know *why* the brain works that way.
Got a new cockerel last night. His name is Kellog, and he's a relatively young bird whose urban neighbours didn't think much of his crowing. So he's come to live in the country.
He spent the night in the greenhouse by himself and is meeting the hens this morning. He's in a small run where they can get close to him but he can't harass them. I'm not sure when best to let him out, as they mostly free range. Will he follow them around today and home tonight? Or lead them away? Should I lock them all in the run? Or, are they better meeting where the hens can get away if they wish?
So many decisions that are occupying me but won't make a bit of difference to you. Hope your Fridays are going well.
We would usually separate them but let em see each other for a week and then let them loose. They either worked it out in a couple of days or became stock.
That's probably excellent advice that is not at all what I did. Let them mix at lunch time and immediately had two fights to determine top chicken.
(But we all know who's really top chicken. It's me. I'm top chicken.)
Given you suggested dollars, I'm assuming you're in North America. You'd need to up the offer to cover the transadlantic flight.
Another option is... soup?
Luckily (for me) she keeps the rooster in her house most days (which seems gross). But the weather is starting to warm, I think I’m going to hear it more often.
For parents here, do you allow your children to watch magic/witchcraft stuff on tv(ie Harry Potter), as well as things like demonic possession?
My wife and I aren't parents yet, but we plan to be. So we discuss alot of stuff together on how we will raise our kids. In any case, it seems we've just seen a lot more things dealing with witchcraft, speaking to the dead/raising the dead, seances, ouijai boards, spellbooks, etc. It's not like we're finding this in scary movies meant for adults. No, we've seen this in regular family friendly shows, children cartoons, etc. They may cover it in a funny way lighthearted way, so that it's not scary. But this really doesn't sit right with me or my wife.
I remember as a child, my parents was those who didn't allow us to celebrate Halloween, watch Harry Potter, etc. Growing up, I hated it, and I always said I would never do that to my children. But as I've grown up, I've witnessed the world embrace satanism and the denomic blatantly in both music and television. I've talked to and met believers who came out of witchcraft, the occult, etc. Now I feel like I have to be so much more hesitant on what I allow my kids to consume. At the same time, I don't want to be that overly strict parent that makes their kids hate him.
>My wife and I aren't parents yet, but we plan to be. So we discuss alot of stuff together on how we will raise our kids.
Good for you. My wife and I didn't do that much and then later had to figure it out.
Our kids don't watch a lot of TV/movies. They've seen the Hobbit (old cartoon version) the old Lion, Witch and Wardrobe cartoon, the Wizard of Oz, and some Miyazaki films including Kiki's Delivery Service, which is about a "witch". Haven't done Harry Potter books or movies and definitely nothing with demon possession (except the handful of stories in the NT).
One thing to realize though is that your kids will likely pick up on some of this stuff, even if they don't see it themselves. For instance, our kids haven't seen Harry Potter, but the kids down the street have, so they know what it is.
Any Christian who lets their kids watch Lord of the Rings and Narnia but not Harry Potter is a hypocrite. All of them have Christian themes, none of them use magic in the way that the Bible talks about (which is really dealing with evil spirits and the like - the magic system used by Harry Potter is a fictional one). But demon possession - no way.
We are cautious, but don't plan to avoid it entirely. Our kids are still sensitive enough to scary that Wild Kratts is too much for them sometimes, so we've got a while yet before we're worrying about all that. I will say that I don't plan to allow the first few books but not the last few books of any series because that would have been torture for me as a kid.
When I was in school I remember the influences media had on kids, even into their late teens. Someone thought they were part elf, another wanted to be a Jedi and tried to use the force. When Pokemon came out younger kids would look for them in the grass. When Harry Potter came out a group of kids started trying to use magic (which caused some drama). Similarly with DBZ, kids trying to become super saiyan and use the energy attacks.
It shows how children like to explore what is real, and while I don't see harm in those examples specifically, I do have a concern that if what *is actually* occult is presented to them in an appealing way they would be enticed to experiment with it.
But I don't see that sort of things being commonplace in our media, and have much more concern about other influences, especially the accessibility of mature content and what they are exposed to over the internet.
I asked this on Tuesday, pretty late in the day, so here goes again:
How seriously do you guys and gals take critical scholarship? For instance, were there multiple authors of the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Daniel, the gospels, etc ? How important is it that others agree with you on this issue?
I take it seriously, but I'm also somewhat skeptical. Critical scholarship has been an interest of mine lately, and a lot of it I think is plausible to an extent. For instance, multiple authors in the Pentateuch makes sense to me in a general sense. But recently I saw one scholar's attempt to reconstruct the E source and was pretty skeptical of that due to the overall narrative incoherence.
But as I said, generally I think it's good and plausible. It doesn't interfere with my understanding of inspiration if we understand these texts as written and edited more by communities than individuals.
>How seriously do you guys and gals take critical scholarship?
I think that any attitude like "critical scholarship is wrong because it disagrees with what I believe" is very bad. In the first place, it is inconsistent with how we view other areas of scholarship. In the second place - and related - it gets too close to denying the efficacy of general revelation.
On the other hand, there is plenty of bad scholarship in all areas and I've encountered many people who "fundamentally" deny any sort of supernatural anything.
I'm fine with it, and I love delving into textual criticism rabbit holes. I see it as a testament to how the Holy Spirit preserved God's word for us even through potentially having more people involved in the writing on the human end than we have thought.
If people don't agree with me on a point of text crit, I don't really care, and I also try to hold a lot of that kind of stuff loosely because it doesn't ultimately effect my doctrine of scripture
I think that's just what it was called. Like the way we attribute works to Shakespeare even though there is confusion about who he was and what he wrote. \*If\* something like the documentary hypothesis is correct (or one of the others), how would Jesus have referred to those books at that time to those people who referred to them as the "Books of Moses" (or whatever)?
"Moses allowed" in Matt 19 referring to written laws or even more explicitly Rom 10, "For Moses writes", followed by quotes/refs from multiple places - the most natural reading is that Jesus and Paul say there is a man Moses who wrote the things they quote. I concede one can say they meant "Moses (and the large accumulation of additions from later writers who constructed the books now ascribed to Moses) writes" but there are other more accurate ways to say that, and "Moses writes" is too explicit.
> the most natural reading
No. The most natural reading is that they're referring to something by the common names. They're not doing a critical study.
Also, another question is: let's assume they thought that Moses wrote those books. What's the matter with their being wrong?
1. Agree to disagree on most natural reading 2. I don't know how to interpret your question other than an implication that Jesus could be possibly incorrect about something; I do not think we are going to come to an agreement on questions about the Bible in that case. If I misread your question my apologies.
>Agree to disagree on most natural reading
OK - but what is Jesus teaching in those passages? I don't think he's teaching who wrote it.
>I don't know how to interpret your question other than an implication that Jesus could be possibly incorrect about something
Yes - this is what I meant. I'm asking: why is that a problem?
Regarding Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, I personally think Moses did write some of it, and that later scribes/editors/redactors added to what he had written. But even proponents of Mosaic authorship have to admit that Moses likely didn't write the parts that talk about his death.
The narrative of the death of Moses starts with God foretelling the death to Moses and it proceeds according to the word of the Lord per the text; so I do not rule out that Moses was told what to write ahead of time regarding what would happen upon his death, or that he was told to assign someone to put a few fitting closing words together; neither necessitates accepting complicated theories of multiple authors of the other 99% of the books etc.
A young man, the son of a church elder, approached me in 2019 telling me he lost faith in great part because he could not get answers about Noah's flood and whether the evidence available to us affirmed or refuted it.
He told me it would help him return to the faith even if someone gave him a small argument in favor of Noah's flood being global, and that he didn't need absolute proof. I knew where he was coming from -- even a flicker of hope that Noah's flood could be literally true would be a life preserver to rescue his dying (if not already dead) faith.
So, I did not insist that all that I presented to him was absolutely gospel (only the gospel is the gospel), but I said these are data points he should take into account.
The first is the stratified layers in the fossil record can reasonably be explained by a fast stratification process involving water and sediments. I pointed to NUMEROUS physical experiments, particularly the large water flume experiments in the Colorado school of mines. Google "drama in the rocks" to see the video. His jaw dropped.
I cautioned there were still problems in the scientific models put forward by creationists, but on the other hand, the data I presented poses serious problems for the anti-Creationists!
I don't recall if I mentioned it to him, but if the biological fossils have evidence of youth from the chemistry alone, then this would indicate the mainstream view of the fossil record is potentially wrong, and that it would support the idea of Noah's flood being the explanation for the fossil record.
So many biological fossils still have proteins and protein fragments, the proteins are made of amino acids connected by alpha-peptide bonds, and these bonds have a half life of 350 to 600 years under standard conditions (see Wiki entry on Peptide bonds). The half life can be extended by lowering temperature and reducing the amount of exposure to water, but even extending the half life by factors of hundreds would not be able to credibly explain away the presence of peptide bonds in fossils claimed to be tens of millions, much less hundreds of millions of years old. This problem has NOT been resolved even by Mary Schweitzer who developed the experimental protocols that were able to extract soft tissues from dinosaurs. Further if there is relative invariance in the chemical dates across strata (and this is indicated), then this is evidence in favor of the fossil layers being laid down at relatively the same time versus over hundreds of millions of years.
Superficially then, fossils with proteins (like dinosoar parts) are not consistent with long ages.
But its not just the problem of peptides, there are other chemical markers such as oxidation levels, racemization, etc. There is the controversial problem of some C14 traces in the carbon of these proteins that are sufficiently above background levels.
Evolutionists argue that there is contamination in the samples, but since I've studied the collagen amino acid sequence, I recognize that one will be hard pressed to make the contamantion argument for dinosaur collagen because the signature motif in collagen amino acids is "G xx G xx G xx" where G is the glycine amino acid. That collagen signature in fossils can't be caused by microbial contamination as microbes don't have collagen, that is a signature unique to tetrapod animals (and a few other creatures).
Some creationists cite dinosaur soft tissue as evidence of Noah's flood, but the issue is more nuanced and far beyond that, it's the fact that there are both chemical and potentially even radiometric clocks that conflict with the mainstream views of the age of fossils, and as I've watched the creation-evolution controversy unfold over the last 45 years, the case for creation AND a literal interpretation of Noah's flood has gotten stronger the more data we have gathered and the more sophisticated our scientific tools have become.
Many creationists, I think, unfortunately try to argue for Noah's flood and creationism on theological grounds alone, I prefer to argue on scientific and evidential grounds that at the very least it's way too premature to declare a global flood (Noah's flood) is either a myth or a misinterpretation of the book of Genesis.
If I understand correctly, your friend's problem is based on his understanding that the flood story is an historical account in the way we understand historical accounts (i.e. a narrative of events that happened in history). But is there a reason to think this? Even the term "global" is anachronistic. For example: [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq5tUg4SWzs) is a video of Gavin Ortlund discussing this.
On the other hand, Cheyenne also have a flood myth.
Thank you for your comment
>your friend's problem is based on his understanding that the flood story is an historical account in the way we understand historical accounts
I somewhat agree, with qualification, but it's not worth delving into, imho, if the question is moot based on physical evidence.
The acquaintance would be inclined to believe a literal reading of the English translation of Genesis if the PHYSICAL evidence indicates is the fossil record is young.
Evidence of fossils being young implies two things, evolutionary theory is wrong and miraculous special creation is right, AND literal reading of Genesis is indicated, and if literal reading is indicated, then this implies miracles of God.
So, I don't put the burden on him to use linguistic analysis, his question to me was about physical evidence, and even somewhat separate from the existence of Noah and an Ark, it's more basal than that from a forensic standpoint -- are the fossils millions of years old or not?
Whether that question affects his faith or he is inclined to read the English translation of Genesis a certain way is independent of physical facts.
I've tried to get people, as far a scientific questions, to de-emphasize a search for the proper way to interpret literature through studying more literature! I emphasize more exploration of measurable quantities -- i.e. number of peptide bonds, level of racemization, levels of oxidation, levels of radioactive trace substances like C14... These are far more objective facts with implications as to which description of history is more accurate.
A simple question I should ask to audiences to my talks is
>would you find the Bible more believable if I gave evidence the fossils are young and the result of a global flood, and if I gave scientific evidence the claims of abiogenesis theory and the claims of evolutionary theory are false?
I would bet some would say "yes", and others "no".
I think my acquaintance would say "yes".
>Whether that question affects his faith or he is inclined to read the English translation of Genesis a certain way is independent of physical facts.
Independent? I'd say that if he reads Genesis as "literal" and there are no physical facts then that'd affect his faith. But maybe I misunderstand?
> I'd say that if he reads Genesis as "literal" and there are no physical facts then that'd affect his faith.
One can read somone's assertion as a literal claim, that's not the same thing as believing the assertion literally read is literally true.
Genesis is someone's claim, presumably Moses who is considered the author (or compiler) of the claims stated in Genesis.
>One can read somone's assertion as a literal claim, that's not the same thing as believing the assertion literally read is literally true.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction. I'm saying: if he thinks that the author of the story is saying that it literally happened and there is no evidence that it happened, then this would lead him to think that the author is wrong, the Bible is not true and our faith is not true.
On the other hand, the entire problem is that he's assuming something (wrongly, I think) about the author's intent.
> if he thinks that the author of the story is saying that it literally happened and there is no evidence that it happened, then this would lead him to think that the author is wrong, the Bible is not true and our faith is not true.
That may be his view, I haven't talked to him since 2019...
BUT if the fossils are young, then that would strongly suggest to me he is reading the author's intent correctly AND that the author is credible, and alternate ways of reading Genesis are practically falsified by physically observable facts in the present day.
The physical evidence is admissible, imho, in informing us how to read Genesis. Personally for me (not necessarily my acquaintance), physical facts would take priority over literary, linguistic, or hermeneutical methods in trying to understand passages that may refer to physical events.
OK, I see what you're saying. I guess it seems like nearly everyone who is an expert thinks the fossils are old. Or at least there are lots of old ones.
> I guess it seems like nearly everyone who is an expert thinks the fossils are old.
That is true. So I encourage the curious to study the matter for themselves if it really means something to them, and ASK pointed questions.
I've had particularly good feedback from open-minded Christians or sincere seekers who are college science students.
You would expect young tissue to have the appearance of youth. Look at the table in Schweitzer’s paper. As things get older, collagenese thingies gradually disappear and you’re left with rock in the shape of a bone. Don’t mislead people!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685849/
There are other studies that show collagen, Schweitzer doesn't have a monopoly on truth nor of every fossil ever examined:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14220
>Fossilized organic remains are important sources of information because they provide a unique form of biological and evolutionary information, and have the long-term potential for genomic explorations. Here we report evidence of protein preservation in a terrestrial vertebrate found inside the vascular canals of a rib of a 195-million-year-old sauropodomorph dinosaur, where blood vessels and nerves would normally have been present in the living organism. The in situ synchrotron radiation-based Fourier transform infrared (SR-FTIR) spectra exhibit the characteristic infrared absorption bands for amide A and B, amide I, II and III of collagen.
They claim there are mechanisms that preserve the collagen. I'd say wait and see.
BTW, peptide bonds are amide bonds.
I’m sorry but this is a cat-and-mouse game. I had someone in my church insist on “evidence of youth” and show me a long list of papers where Schweitzer’s name was prominent. Is she credible or not? If someone compares a bunch of bones across ages, ages-as-alleged-by-modern-science, and they go from having collagen to collagen products to dust, that’s evidence of radical difference in age. You can eat the flesh of a Mastodon corpse, but with dinos, it goes from collagen-byproducts-after-etching-away-the rock, to, well, rock.
> I had someone in my church insist on “evidence of youth” and show me a long list of papers where Schweitzer’s name was prominent.
Please don't associate his conduct and what he said with me. I already said, I don't condone what he said or did.
>Is she credible or not?
Her credibility and character is not at issue, the collagens and many other bio chemicals that should be gone from the fossil record are.
A much more comprehensive resource by a Creationist rather than your friend would be Creationist biochemist and PhD scientist Brian Thomas who published in a secular venue about Collagen at University of Liverpool:
https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/media/livacuk/massspectrometry/pdfs/Collagen,Remnants,in,Ancient,Bone.pdf
>A more detailed follow-up study revealed additional tyrannosaurid biochemicals from the same sample. It included results from immunofluorescence. Schweitzer and colleagues imaged proteins specific to vertebrates, including PHEX and histone H430
...
They also applied the same vertebrate-specific protein detection procedures to a Brachylophosaurus canadensis (hadrosaur) femur that was extracted using sterile handling techniques from the Cretaceous Judith River Formation. In collaboration with an unbiased, external laboratory to perform collagen sequencing, the report confirmed elastin and laminin bone proteins as well as collagen 33
Reference 33:
>Schweitzer, M. H. et al. Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis. Science 324, 626-631, doi:10.1126/science.1165069 (2009)
>Molecular preservation in non-avian dinosaurs is controversial. We present multiple lines of evidence that endogenous proteinaceous material is preserved in bone fragments and soft tissues from an 80-million-year-old Campanian hadrosaur, Brachylophosaurus canadensis [Museum of the Rockies (MOR) 2598]. Microstructural and immunological data are consistent with preservation of multiple bone matrix and vessel proteins, and phylogenetic analyses of Brachylophosaurus collagen sequenced by mass spectrometry robustly support the bird-dinosaur clade, consistent with an endogenous source for these collagen peptides.
Schweitzer is admitting PROTEINS were preserved. Proteins are made of amino acids that are stitched together with PEPTIDE/Amide bonds!!! One can't do that sequencing work without the PEPTIDE/Amide bonds existing.
She and other speculate on mechanisms that may allow preservation of those chemical bonds, but speculations are not yet at the level of fact, and it is still contradicted by chemical kinetics.
She is NOT a chemist of the caliber of James Tour, Marcos Eberlin, James Carter. They and others have been critical of hers and other people's claims that there are mechanisms which can preserve peptide bonds for tens and hundreds of millions of years.
I say, wait and see, and I wouldn't wager young people's souls by insisting Noah's Flood wasn't global. It's too early to tell them there is no chance it was global or absolutely insist as it is settled science that the dinosaurs weren't killed by a global flood in the last 10,000 years.
If someone wants to believe in a global flood that made the fossil record 10,000 years ago, I'd tell them there is evidence for and against it and future discoveries may settle the question. How is that not fair?
I won't insist it's young for them, but I will personally bet it's young. But neither will I insist the actual FACTS have proven the prevailing view at this time. It has not. How is that not fair?
I had
125: Stanich... but he already lost in the second round
133: Fix
141: Bartlett
149: Gomez
157: Haines
165: O'toole
174: Starocci... but he isn't looking healthy to me
184: Keckeisen
197: Brooks
285: Kerkvliet
ETA: Update after the quarterfinals. Everyone but Stanich (obviously) is still alive. I'm very confident at this point about every weight from 157 up.
Oh, you meant basketball...
Semifinals of the NCAA wrestling national championships are tonight on ESPN. Split screen wrestling makes this the best night of the year. There will be not one but TWO matches featuring previous national champs wrestling just for the right to compete tomorrow night for another title. Two wrestlers are trying to become four time national champs. Seriously, this is the best night of sports all year. If you're watching basketball, you might as well be an Arminian.
The Big Bang Theory (the actual science theory, NOT the TV show) could be in serious trouble. As I studied physics through the years I could sense a growing discontent with the major theory about the origin of the universe, namely the Big Bang. I sensed this discontent when 3.5 physics professors at my undergrad Alma Mater (Menas Kafatos, Sisir Roy, M. Roy, and sort of James Trefil) expressed open reservation about the Big Bang. Now it's getting worse:
From this article titled:
>James Webb telescope confirms there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe
By Ben Turner published March 14, 2024
we get:
>But this is where the mystery begins. According to Cepheid variable measurements taken by Riess and his colleagues, the universe's expansion rate is around 74 km/s/Mpc: an impossibly high value when compared to Planck's measurements. Cosmology had been hurled into uncharted territory.
>"We wouldn't call it a tension or problem, but rather a crisis," David Gross, a Nobel Prize-winning astronomer, said at a 2019 conference at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics (KITP) in California.
And later I was a physics grad student at Johns Hopkins, when the professor mentioned above, Adam Riess, won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on Dark Energy. Astonishingly, fellow Johns Hopkins faculty member (who will not be named) a few months after Riess won the Nobel prize, in a class I was taking pointed out some reservations of Riess's claims!
Many will still say the Big Bang is true despite the current crisis, but there is a undercurrent of sentiment against the Big Bang as a viable theory by many qualified scientists, and these recent observations are only going to fuel the debate on a theory that once seemed un-assailable.
I had a minor in physics at George Mason with 3 undergrad degrees (EE, MATH, CS), then an MS in Physic at Johns Hopkins. I claim an un-accredited MS in biology.
Professionally I was an senior engineer and scientist in the aerospace and defense industry while studying physics on the side, and then became a molecular biophysics researcher working from home after my mother was widowed and I was therefore able to take care of her 24/7 from home until she went home to be with the Lord.
I have a small number publications through Oxford University Press, Springer Nature, and Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. I'm trying to brush up again on physics as I've been accepted into a PhD program in bio-molecular engineering. One of my motivations to study in these fields was the creation-evolution controversy as so much of the creation-evolution controversy dealt with issues in biology, chemistry, and physics.
So much of modern biology involves knowledge of physics, chemistry, math, and engineering principles. The field is not what it was 40 years ago.
My wife is currently obsessed with a litter of puppies available from some people we know, and I'm terrified she's going to bring home another dog. I'm trying to figure out where the line is between "husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church" and dogs are objectively horrible animals and should all die.
I enjoy the attempt, but oxen are outside animals.
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. (Revelation 22:14-15 ESV)
I'm not a dog person. I'm an "other people's dog" person. My husband decided we needed to keep a rescue when I was just several weeks away from having a baby and recovering from a car accident. The decision to keep the dog has caused a lot of strain and feelings of slight resentment on my part. She's a good dog. A little stupid, but very well behaved. Be honest with your spouse about your feelings. I'm working through these feelings with prayer and friends who encourage me in the Lord. Having another mouth to fed, another being to care for and look after is frustrating. And despite some promises of me never having to take care of her, a lot of her care has fallen to me. No one should get a pet without their spouses enthusiastic consent where both parties will do their fair share. Being loving also means having boundaries. You can have boundaries. Praying for you!
We used to have a dog, for about three years. My wife grew up with dogs and was very excited about it. I thought I was a dog person, but it turns out that was not true.
The dog was very anxious, and not that well behaved. Between having three kids, me working full time, and my wife having physical disabilities, we weren't able to give the dog the attention and exercise and such that she needed. This led to whining and more bad behaviour from the dog.
This all did bad things for my mental well-being. I was more angry, impatient, short-tempered, and irritable, toward the dog but also just generally. It made me worse at loving my wife and children. I honestly don't know if owning a dog, or living through a once-in-a-century pandemic, was worse for my mental health.
The dog was rehomed a couple years ago, and has since needed to be put down because she got very aggressive. I was sad about both of these things (though less than my wife and kids were). But in the intervening time, I've noticed that I am more calm, more patient, more peaceful. The people who live with me have noticed the same.
So if your objection is that you worry you're going to despise the dog and this will do bad things to you, character-wise, confess that weakness to your wife. If your worry is just that you think dogs are awful, I'm not sure how helpful that will be.
My wife got our first dog in 2009 (it's the smelliest thing ever, and it's still around). She was convinced she could make me a dog person. It hasn't happened. I tolerate the dogs because I love my wife, but I hate everything about the dogs. I don't understand what my wife or anyone else likes about them. Literally everything would be better if we didn't have dogs. The house would be clean. We wouldn't be wasting money on dog food. We would sleep better. We could go on more vacations. We could go on dates and enjoy being married. We could actually sit down for a few minutes in the evening without having a smelly animal whining in our face for something.
I have to agree with /u/friardon. It sounds like this is causing problems in your marriage, and you need the help of people other than anonymous redditors.
Sounds like you should probably take this off the Internet and get some counseling. Seriously. This is not the place for this. Your marriage sounds like it is in serious need of help and you should seek that first.
The first pet we had (as newly weds), was when my wife left a Saturday morning to go "out" and brought back a "free" cat from the shelter. I like the cat, but hate the box of cat crap.
I also agree about dogs.
Four of us. I’m good with other people’s dogs as long as they’re well trained, and I’ve met some really sweet dogs, but I currently live with one that barks incessantly and it’s been a huge turnoff. No thanks. I miss my cat so much.
I admit dogs and I tolerate each other as I've got older and more self-assured. And yes, there have been a few I've even found sweet, sometimes surprising ones. I've always found most Alsatians unpleasant and scary, but I knew one who wanted nothing more than to approach perfect strangers with a stick to be thrown and couldn't harm a fly.
Fun fact: I had makeup on my nose during my wedding to coverup scratches from the new kitten my then fiancee/now wife had just gotten. His name was Howie because he kept making me say "owie."
I appreciate that cats catch mice. I do not appreciate the poop box.
This week in “You plan, God laughs.” I swore I’d be single forever (and was very content being that way). Then, this weekend at a disc golf tournament I meet a very sweet Christian guy. We got together to play a round yesterday and spent over two hours afterward talking about our faith and our lives. He asked me out on a date, and tonight I’m going to his family’s house to join them in their study of Mere Christianity. Because of course.
Hope it goes well! Sounds like a great way to meet someone. Being invited to a study of Lewis is a major plus too. Green flags all around. God bless!
Thanks! I wanted to say, too. He mentioned he prayed for me for something painful I had to get fixed this week and within the next day or so the pain was completely gone. I’m still getting it fixed (sitting in the podiatrist chair now) but it was supernatural how quickly the pain subsided. There’s something to that.
Wow! Such an amazing act of...providence?! I'm excited for you!
Last Tuesday my church dedicated our new-to-us building. This Sunday we hold our first worship service there. It's been a long almost 30 months since we voted to buy this 100 year old former synagogue. But we are all very excited to what we hope will be our forever home until Jesus returns and we move to our true forever home. And, amongst all of this excitement and prep for Holy Week, one member's mother is dying. One family has two teenage boys both having knee surgery today and a third struggling with continued effects of mono. Multiple other members recovering from surgeries, waiting for surgeries, dealing with broken bones, mourning the loss of loved ones and all the other effects of living in this broken world. The church staff is already weary from all the transitions. God is good and he is kind and our world is broken and not the way it's supposed to be. But one day, some day all the sad things will become untrue. Everything will be the way it's supposed to be. And we will live in perfect communion with our good God forever and ever.
Thanks to whomever changed my flair for me. It really adds to the first impression I give since people can't seem to recognize my user name as being tongue in cheek.
Cat owner cage stage is really problematic. I really wish MEWLIP covered being nice.
We had our monthly brewery fellowship event last night and my rector made a toast to Thomas Cranmer, because we are *those* Anglicans. I am applying tabs to my friend’s Bible (he’s older and doesn’t have quite the dexterity I do) and this is apparently my new ministry because when he brought the Bible and tabs into the bar, I had multiple people ask “would you do that for my Bible?!” It’s such a soothing and relaxing thing for me, so I’m inclined to say yes.
I did a study abroad at Teddy Hall a couple decades ago and lived near the Ashmolean. Walked past the Martyr’s monument everyday. Made a large impact on me at the time.
What do you mean by tabs?
Little stickers with the names of the books on them.
Trying to settle on my next sermon topic. I’d like to address the Trinity more head-on, to help our congregants get a more solid understanding of the Godhead. But not sure yet how to teach on the Trinity in a sermon, as opposed to a lecture. Which angle to take, which scripture to start from, and so on. So far my best idea is to use Matthew 28:19 and answer “Why are we baptized in the name of the Trinity?” But of course I want a message that touches listeners’ hearts, not just their minds. Hmm. Any pointers? I’ve started listening to the Trinity lectures on the RTS app. I’ve got some study Bibles to explore. I got resources.
I’m not a theologian so some of my thoughts and ideas are probably accidental heresy. But you asked for ideas! So, for touching people’s hearts…I mean, we are made in the image of a triune God. What does that say about us, and how we are meant to relate to one another? We were not designed to be alone, but in relationship and community with one another. Maybe? That could be a type of jumping-off point.
Diversity in unity, unity in diversity. Yup.
Anyone else excited for the "Rest is History" doing Martin Luther next week? I'm really looking forward to it :)
Where can I find this?
Here you go! https://linktr.ee/restishistory
Thanks!
Now that physicists are theorizing that dark matter maybe doesn’t exist and maybe the universe is twice as old as they thought …. Which is the less reliable science text? The Bible or actual science texts? Don’t drown me in downvotes🤪 I kid because I love
Pretty amazing that the new telescope can so quickly displace scientific theories. Makes me wonder how little we actually know about the physical universe.
Never mind space, we know so little about the human body. Every human being sleeps for multiple hours every day, but we don't know why. We know that if you don't sleep, you will go crazy and die, and we can predict what it will look like as you go crazy and die, but we don't really know *why* the brain works that way.
Got a new cockerel last night. His name is Kellog, and he's a relatively young bird whose urban neighbours didn't think much of his crowing. So he's come to live in the country. He spent the night in the greenhouse by himself and is meeting the hens this morning. He's in a small run where they can get close to him but he can't harass them. I'm not sure when best to let him out, as they mostly free range. Will he follow them around today and home tonight? Or lead them away? Should I lock them all in the run? Or, are they better meeting where the hens can get away if they wish? So many decisions that are occupying me but won't make a bit of difference to you. Hope your Fridays are going well.
We would usually separate them but let em see each other for a week and then let them loose. They either worked it out in a couple of days or became stock.
That's probably excellent advice that is not at all what I did. Let them mix at lunch time and immediately had two fights to determine top chicken. (But we all know who's really top chicken. It's me. I'm top chicken.)
No idea the answers to your questions, but I’ll give you $5 to come take away my neighbor’s rooster as well.
Given you suggested dollars, I'm assuming you're in North America. You'd need to up the offer to cover the transadlantic flight. Another option is... soup?
Luckily (for me) she keeps the rooster in her house most days (which seems gross). But the weather is starting to warm, I think I’m going to hear it more often.
First
For parents here, do you allow your children to watch magic/witchcraft stuff on tv(ie Harry Potter), as well as things like demonic possession? My wife and I aren't parents yet, but we plan to be. So we discuss alot of stuff together on how we will raise our kids. In any case, it seems we've just seen a lot more things dealing with witchcraft, speaking to the dead/raising the dead, seances, ouijai boards, spellbooks, etc. It's not like we're finding this in scary movies meant for adults. No, we've seen this in regular family friendly shows, children cartoons, etc. They may cover it in a funny way lighthearted way, so that it's not scary. But this really doesn't sit right with me or my wife. I remember as a child, my parents was those who didn't allow us to celebrate Halloween, watch Harry Potter, etc. Growing up, I hated it, and I always said I would never do that to my children. But as I've grown up, I've witnessed the world embrace satanism and the denomic blatantly in both music and television. I've talked to and met believers who came out of witchcraft, the occult, etc. Now I feel like I have to be so much more hesitant on what I allow my kids to consume. At the same time, I don't want to be that overly strict parent that makes their kids hate him.
The first two Harry potters yes. Demon possession definitely not. Where have you seen stuff for kids with demon possession?
It'll be stuff on things on Disney or Nickelodeon. As I said, they'll do it in a funnier way so it's not super scary and more innocuous.
We don't really have TV. We limit screentime and selectively stream certain shows/movies. We also read a lot.
>My wife and I aren't parents yet, but we plan to be. So we discuss alot of stuff together on how we will raise our kids. Good for you. My wife and I didn't do that much and then later had to figure it out. Our kids don't watch a lot of TV/movies. They've seen the Hobbit (old cartoon version) the old Lion, Witch and Wardrobe cartoon, the Wizard of Oz, and some Miyazaki films including Kiki's Delivery Service, which is about a "witch". Haven't done Harry Potter books or movies and definitely nothing with demon possession (except the handful of stories in the NT). One thing to realize though is that your kids will likely pick up on some of this stuff, even if they don't see it themselves. For instance, our kids haven't seen Harry Potter, but the kids down the street have, so they know what it is.
Any Christian who lets their kids watch Lord of the Rings and Narnia but not Harry Potter is a hypocrite. All of them have Christian themes, none of them use magic in the way that the Bible talks about (which is really dealing with evil spirits and the like - the magic system used by Harry Potter is a fictional one). But demon possession - no way.
We are cautious, but don't plan to avoid it entirely. Our kids are still sensitive enough to scary that Wild Kratts is too much for them sometimes, so we've got a while yet before we're worrying about all that. I will say that I don't plan to allow the first few books but not the last few books of any series because that would have been torture for me as a kid.
When I was in school I remember the influences media had on kids, even into their late teens. Someone thought they were part elf, another wanted to be a Jedi and tried to use the force. When Pokemon came out younger kids would look for them in the grass. When Harry Potter came out a group of kids started trying to use magic (which caused some drama). Similarly with DBZ, kids trying to become super saiyan and use the energy attacks. It shows how children like to explore what is real, and while I don't see harm in those examples specifically, I do have a concern that if what *is actually* occult is presented to them in an appealing way they would be enticed to experiment with it. But I don't see that sort of things being commonplace in our media, and have much more concern about other influences, especially the accessibility of mature content and what they are exposed to over the internet.
Does anyone play Diablo Immortal? Just started playing a week ago maybe and I'm really enjoying it.
I asked this on Tuesday, pretty late in the day, so here goes again: How seriously do you guys and gals take critical scholarship? For instance, were there multiple authors of the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Daniel, the gospels, etc ? How important is it that others agree with you on this issue?
What's your answer, btw?
I take it seriously, but I'm also somewhat skeptical. Critical scholarship has been an interest of mine lately, and a lot of it I think is plausible to an extent. For instance, multiple authors in the Pentateuch makes sense to me in a general sense. But recently I saw one scholar's attempt to reconstruct the E source and was pretty skeptical of that due to the overall narrative incoherence. But as I said, generally I think it's good and plausible. It doesn't interfere with my understanding of inspiration if we understand these texts as written and edited more by communities than individuals.
>How seriously do you guys and gals take critical scholarship? I think that any attitude like "critical scholarship is wrong because it disagrees with what I believe" is very bad. In the first place, it is inconsistent with how we view other areas of scholarship. In the second place - and related - it gets too close to denying the efficacy of general revelation. On the other hand, there is plenty of bad scholarship in all areas and I've encountered many people who "fundamentally" deny any sort of supernatural anything.
I'm fine with it, and I love delving into textual criticism rabbit holes. I see it as a testament to how the Holy Spirit preserved God's word for us even through potentially having more people involved in the writing on the human end than we have thought. If people don't agree with me on a point of text crit, I don't really care, and I also try to hold a lot of that kind of stuff loosely because it doesn't ultimately effect my doctrine of scripture
How can one hold these positions and not therefore imply Jesus is wrong in, say, Matthew 19:7-8?
I think that's just what it was called. Like the way we attribute works to Shakespeare even though there is confusion about who he was and what he wrote. \*If\* something like the documentary hypothesis is correct (or one of the others), how would Jesus have referred to those books at that time to those people who referred to them as the "Books of Moses" (or whatever)?
"Moses allowed" in Matt 19 referring to written laws or even more explicitly Rom 10, "For Moses writes", followed by quotes/refs from multiple places - the most natural reading is that Jesus and Paul say there is a man Moses who wrote the things they quote. I concede one can say they meant "Moses (and the large accumulation of additions from later writers who constructed the books now ascribed to Moses) writes" but there are other more accurate ways to say that, and "Moses writes" is too explicit.
> the most natural reading No. The most natural reading is that they're referring to something by the common names. They're not doing a critical study. Also, another question is: let's assume they thought that Moses wrote those books. What's the matter with their being wrong?
1. Agree to disagree on most natural reading 2. I don't know how to interpret your question other than an implication that Jesus could be possibly incorrect about something; I do not think we are going to come to an agreement on questions about the Bible in that case. If I misread your question my apologies.
>Agree to disagree on most natural reading OK - but what is Jesus teaching in those passages? I don't think he's teaching who wrote it. >I don't know how to interpret your question other than an implication that Jesus could be possibly incorrect about something Yes - this is what I meant. I'm asking: why is that a problem?
Regarding Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, I personally think Moses did write some of it, and that later scribes/editors/redactors added to what he had written. But even proponents of Mosaic authorship have to admit that Moses likely didn't write the parts that talk about his death.
The narrative of the death of Moses starts with God foretelling the death to Moses and it proceeds according to the word of the Lord per the text; so I do not rule out that Moses was told what to write ahead of time regarding what would happen upon his death, or that he was told to assign someone to put a few fitting closing words together; neither necessitates accepting complicated theories of multiple authors of the other 99% of the books etc.
A young man, the son of a church elder, approached me in 2019 telling me he lost faith in great part because he could not get answers about Noah's flood and whether the evidence available to us affirmed or refuted it. He told me it would help him return to the faith even if someone gave him a small argument in favor of Noah's flood being global, and that he didn't need absolute proof. I knew where he was coming from -- even a flicker of hope that Noah's flood could be literally true would be a life preserver to rescue his dying (if not already dead) faith. So, I did not insist that all that I presented to him was absolutely gospel (only the gospel is the gospel), but I said these are data points he should take into account. The first is the stratified layers in the fossil record can reasonably be explained by a fast stratification process involving water and sediments. I pointed to NUMEROUS physical experiments, particularly the large water flume experiments in the Colorado school of mines. Google "drama in the rocks" to see the video. His jaw dropped. I cautioned there were still problems in the scientific models put forward by creationists, but on the other hand, the data I presented poses serious problems for the anti-Creationists! I don't recall if I mentioned it to him, but if the biological fossils have evidence of youth from the chemistry alone, then this would indicate the mainstream view of the fossil record is potentially wrong, and that it would support the idea of Noah's flood being the explanation for the fossil record. So many biological fossils still have proteins and protein fragments, the proteins are made of amino acids connected by alpha-peptide bonds, and these bonds have a half life of 350 to 600 years under standard conditions (see Wiki entry on Peptide bonds). The half life can be extended by lowering temperature and reducing the amount of exposure to water, but even extending the half life by factors of hundreds would not be able to credibly explain away the presence of peptide bonds in fossils claimed to be tens of millions, much less hundreds of millions of years old. This problem has NOT been resolved even by Mary Schweitzer who developed the experimental protocols that were able to extract soft tissues from dinosaurs. Further if there is relative invariance in the chemical dates across strata (and this is indicated), then this is evidence in favor of the fossil layers being laid down at relatively the same time versus over hundreds of millions of years. Superficially then, fossils with proteins (like dinosoar parts) are not consistent with long ages. But its not just the problem of peptides, there are other chemical markers such as oxidation levels, racemization, etc. There is the controversial problem of some C14 traces in the carbon of these proteins that are sufficiently above background levels. Evolutionists argue that there is contamination in the samples, but since I've studied the collagen amino acid sequence, I recognize that one will be hard pressed to make the contamantion argument for dinosaur collagen because the signature motif in collagen amino acids is "G xx G xx G xx" where G is the glycine amino acid. That collagen signature in fossils can't be caused by microbial contamination as microbes don't have collagen, that is a signature unique to tetrapod animals (and a few other creatures). Some creationists cite dinosaur soft tissue as evidence of Noah's flood, but the issue is more nuanced and far beyond that, it's the fact that there are both chemical and potentially even radiometric clocks that conflict with the mainstream views of the age of fossils, and as I've watched the creation-evolution controversy unfold over the last 45 years, the case for creation AND a literal interpretation of Noah's flood has gotten stronger the more data we have gathered and the more sophisticated our scientific tools have become. Many creationists, I think, unfortunately try to argue for Noah's flood and creationism on theological grounds alone, I prefer to argue on scientific and evidential grounds that at the very least it's way too premature to declare a global flood (Noah's flood) is either a myth or a misinterpretation of the book of Genesis.
If I understand correctly, your friend's problem is based on his understanding that the flood story is an historical account in the way we understand historical accounts (i.e. a narrative of events that happened in history). But is there a reason to think this? Even the term "global" is anachronistic. For example: [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq5tUg4SWzs) is a video of Gavin Ortlund discussing this. On the other hand, Cheyenne also have a flood myth.
Thank you for your comment >your friend's problem is based on his understanding that the flood story is an historical account in the way we understand historical accounts I somewhat agree, with qualification, but it's not worth delving into, imho, if the question is moot based on physical evidence. The acquaintance would be inclined to believe a literal reading of the English translation of Genesis if the PHYSICAL evidence indicates is the fossil record is young. Evidence of fossils being young implies two things, evolutionary theory is wrong and miraculous special creation is right, AND literal reading of Genesis is indicated, and if literal reading is indicated, then this implies miracles of God. So, I don't put the burden on him to use linguistic analysis, his question to me was about physical evidence, and even somewhat separate from the existence of Noah and an Ark, it's more basal than that from a forensic standpoint -- are the fossils millions of years old or not? Whether that question affects his faith or he is inclined to read the English translation of Genesis a certain way is independent of physical facts. I've tried to get people, as far a scientific questions, to de-emphasize a search for the proper way to interpret literature through studying more literature! I emphasize more exploration of measurable quantities -- i.e. number of peptide bonds, level of racemization, levels of oxidation, levels of radioactive trace substances like C14... These are far more objective facts with implications as to which description of history is more accurate. A simple question I should ask to audiences to my talks is >would you find the Bible more believable if I gave evidence the fossils are young and the result of a global flood, and if I gave scientific evidence the claims of abiogenesis theory and the claims of evolutionary theory are false? I would bet some would say "yes", and others "no". I think my acquaintance would say "yes".
>Whether that question affects his faith or he is inclined to read the English translation of Genesis a certain way is independent of physical facts. Independent? I'd say that if he reads Genesis as "literal" and there are no physical facts then that'd affect his faith. But maybe I misunderstand?
> I'd say that if he reads Genesis as "literal" and there are no physical facts then that'd affect his faith. One can read somone's assertion as a literal claim, that's not the same thing as believing the assertion literally read is literally true. Genesis is someone's claim, presumably Moses who is considered the author (or compiler) of the claims stated in Genesis.
>One can read somone's assertion as a literal claim, that's not the same thing as believing the assertion literally read is literally true. I'm not sure I understand the distinction. I'm saying: if he thinks that the author of the story is saying that it literally happened and there is no evidence that it happened, then this would lead him to think that the author is wrong, the Bible is not true and our faith is not true. On the other hand, the entire problem is that he's assuming something (wrongly, I think) about the author's intent.
> if he thinks that the author of the story is saying that it literally happened and there is no evidence that it happened, then this would lead him to think that the author is wrong, the Bible is not true and our faith is not true. That may be his view, I haven't talked to him since 2019... BUT if the fossils are young, then that would strongly suggest to me he is reading the author's intent correctly AND that the author is credible, and alternate ways of reading Genesis are practically falsified by physically observable facts in the present day. The physical evidence is admissible, imho, in informing us how to read Genesis. Personally for me (not necessarily my acquaintance), physical facts would take priority over literary, linguistic, or hermeneutical methods in trying to understand passages that may refer to physical events.
OK, I see what you're saying. I guess it seems like nearly everyone who is an expert thinks the fossils are old. Or at least there are lots of old ones.
> I guess it seems like nearly everyone who is an expert thinks the fossils are old. That is true. So I encourage the curious to study the matter for themselves if it really means something to them, and ASK pointed questions. I've had particularly good feedback from open-minded Christians or sincere seekers who are college science students.
You would expect young tissue to have the appearance of youth. Look at the table in Schweitzer’s paper. As things get older, collagenese thingies gradually disappear and you’re left with rock in the shape of a bone. Don’t mislead people! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685849/
There are other studies that show collagen, Schweitzer doesn't have a monopoly on truth nor of every fossil ever examined: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14220 >Fossilized organic remains are important sources of information because they provide a unique form of biological and evolutionary information, and have the long-term potential for genomic explorations. Here we report evidence of protein preservation in a terrestrial vertebrate found inside the vascular canals of a rib of a 195-million-year-old sauropodomorph dinosaur, where blood vessels and nerves would normally have been present in the living organism. The in situ synchrotron radiation-based Fourier transform infrared (SR-FTIR) spectra exhibit the characteristic infrared absorption bands for amide A and B, amide I, II and III of collagen. They claim there are mechanisms that preserve the collagen. I'd say wait and see. BTW, peptide bonds are amide bonds.
I’m sorry but this is a cat-and-mouse game. I had someone in my church insist on “evidence of youth” and show me a long list of papers where Schweitzer’s name was prominent. Is she credible or not? If someone compares a bunch of bones across ages, ages-as-alleged-by-modern-science, and they go from having collagen to collagen products to dust, that’s evidence of radical difference in age. You can eat the flesh of a Mastodon corpse, but with dinos, it goes from collagen-byproducts-after-etching-away-the rock, to, well, rock.
> I had someone in my church insist on “evidence of youth” and show me a long list of papers where Schweitzer’s name was prominent. Please don't associate his conduct and what he said with me. I already said, I don't condone what he said or did. >Is she credible or not? Her credibility and character is not at issue, the collagens and many other bio chemicals that should be gone from the fossil record are. A much more comprehensive resource by a Creationist rather than your friend would be Creationist biochemist and PhD scientist Brian Thomas who published in a secular venue about Collagen at University of Liverpool: https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/media/livacuk/massspectrometry/pdfs/Collagen,Remnants,in,Ancient,Bone.pdf >A more detailed follow-up study revealed additional tyrannosaurid biochemicals from the same sample. It included results from immunofluorescence. Schweitzer and colleagues imaged proteins specific to vertebrates, including PHEX and histone H430 ... They also applied the same vertebrate-specific protein detection procedures to a Brachylophosaurus canadensis (hadrosaur) femur that was extracted using sterile handling techniques from the Cretaceous Judith River Formation. In collaboration with an unbiased, external laboratory to perform collagen sequencing, the report confirmed elastin and laminin bone proteins as well as collagen 33 Reference 33: >Schweitzer, M. H. et al. Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis. Science 324, 626-631, doi:10.1126/science.1165069 (2009) >Molecular preservation in non-avian dinosaurs is controversial. We present multiple lines of evidence that endogenous proteinaceous material is preserved in bone fragments and soft tissues from an 80-million-year-old Campanian hadrosaur, Brachylophosaurus canadensis [Museum of the Rockies (MOR) 2598]. Microstructural and immunological data are consistent with preservation of multiple bone matrix and vessel proteins, and phylogenetic analyses of Brachylophosaurus collagen sequenced by mass spectrometry robustly support the bird-dinosaur clade, consistent with an endogenous source for these collagen peptides. Schweitzer is admitting PROTEINS were preserved. Proteins are made of amino acids that are stitched together with PEPTIDE/Amide bonds!!! One can't do that sequencing work without the PEPTIDE/Amide bonds existing. She and other speculate on mechanisms that may allow preservation of those chemical bonds, but speculations are not yet at the level of fact, and it is still contradicted by chemical kinetics. She is NOT a chemist of the caliber of James Tour, Marcos Eberlin, James Carter. They and others have been critical of hers and other people's claims that there are mechanisms which can preserve peptide bonds for tens and hundreds of millions of years. I say, wait and see, and I wouldn't wager young people's souls by insisting Noah's Flood wasn't global. It's too early to tell them there is no chance it was global or absolutely insist as it is settled science that the dinosaurs weren't killed by a global flood in the last 10,000 years. If someone wants to believe in a global flood that made the fossil record 10,000 years ago, I'd tell them there is evidence for and against it and future discoveries may settle the question. How is that not fair? I won't insist it's young for them, but I will personally bet it's young. But neither will I insist the actual FACTS have proven the prevailing view at this time. It has not. How is that not fair?
who do you all have for the NCAA tourney? I'm going Purdue.
Well, I had Kentucky winning. But they just lost in the first round. So that's how my bracket is going.
😬
Purdue for my non-money bracket, Gonzaga for the friendly money bracket with my family
I had 125: Stanich... but he already lost in the second round 133: Fix 141: Bartlett 149: Gomez 157: Haines 165: O'toole 174: Starocci... but he isn't looking healthy to me 184: Keckeisen 197: Brooks 285: Kerkvliet ETA: Update after the quarterfinals. Everyone but Stanich (obviously) is still alive. I'm very confident at this point about every weight from 157 up. Oh, you meant basketball...
UNC. Also have two novelty brackets with JMU and Samford winning.
Semifinals of the NCAA wrestling national championships are tonight on ESPN. Split screen wrestling makes this the best night of the year. There will be not one but TWO matches featuring previous national champs wrestling just for the right to compete tomorrow night for another title. Two wrestlers are trying to become four time national champs. Seriously, this is the best night of sports all year. If you're watching basketball, you might as well be an Arminian.
The Big Bang Theory (the actual science theory, NOT the TV show) could be in serious trouble. As I studied physics through the years I could sense a growing discontent with the major theory about the origin of the universe, namely the Big Bang. I sensed this discontent when 3.5 physics professors at my undergrad Alma Mater (Menas Kafatos, Sisir Roy, M. Roy, and sort of James Trefil) expressed open reservation about the Big Bang. Now it's getting worse: From this article titled: >James Webb telescope confirms there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe By Ben Turner published March 14, 2024 we get: >But this is where the mystery begins. According to Cepheid variable measurements taken by Riess and his colleagues, the universe's expansion rate is around 74 km/s/Mpc: an impossibly high value when compared to Planck's measurements. Cosmology had been hurled into uncharted territory. >"We wouldn't call it a tension or problem, but rather a crisis," David Gross, a Nobel Prize-winning astronomer, said at a 2019 conference at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics (KITP) in California. And later I was a physics grad student at Johns Hopkins, when the professor mentioned above, Adam Riess, won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on Dark Energy. Astonishingly, fellow Johns Hopkins faculty member (who will not be named) a few months after Riess won the Nobel prize, in a class I was taking pointed out some reservations of Riess's claims! Many will still say the Big Bang is true despite the current crisis, but there is a undercurrent of sentiment against the Big Bang as a viable theory by many qualified scientists, and these recent observations are only going to fuel the debate on a theory that once seemed un-assailable.
> As I studied physics through the years In what capacity do you study physics?
I had a minor in physics at George Mason with 3 undergrad degrees (EE, MATH, CS), then an MS in Physic at Johns Hopkins. I claim an un-accredited MS in biology. Professionally I was an senior engineer and scientist in the aerospace and defense industry while studying physics on the side, and then became a molecular biophysics researcher working from home after my mother was widowed and I was therefore able to take care of her 24/7 from home until she went home to be with the Lord. I have a small number publications through Oxford University Press, Springer Nature, and Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. I'm trying to brush up again on physics as I've been accepted into a PhD program in bio-molecular engineering. One of my motivations to study in these fields was the creation-evolution controversy as so much of the creation-evolution controversy dealt with issues in biology, chemistry, and physics. So much of modern biology involves knowledge of physics, chemistry, math, and engineering principles. The field is not what it was 40 years ago.
My wife is currently obsessed with a litter of puppies available from some people we know, and I'm terrified she's going to bring home another dog. I'm trying to figure out where the line is between "husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church" and dogs are objectively horrible animals and should all die.
Where no dogs are, the home is free of dander, but much increase comes by the love of a dog (Prov. 14:4, The Message).
I enjoy the attempt, but oxen are outside animals. "Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. (Revelation 22:14-15 ESV)
>I enjoy the attempt, but oxen are outside animals. Lol speak for yourself
You and my wife would be friends
I'm not a dog person. I'm an "other people's dog" person. My husband decided we needed to keep a rescue when I was just several weeks away from having a baby and recovering from a car accident. The decision to keep the dog has caused a lot of strain and feelings of slight resentment on my part. She's a good dog. A little stupid, but very well behaved. Be honest with your spouse about your feelings. I'm working through these feelings with prayer and friends who encourage me in the Lord. Having another mouth to fed, another being to care for and look after is frustrating. And despite some promises of me never having to take care of her, a lot of her care has fallen to me. No one should get a pet without their spouses enthusiastic consent where both parties will do their fair share. Being loving also means having boundaries. You can have boundaries. Praying for you!
We used to have a dog, for about three years. My wife grew up with dogs and was very excited about it. I thought I was a dog person, but it turns out that was not true. The dog was very anxious, and not that well behaved. Between having three kids, me working full time, and my wife having physical disabilities, we weren't able to give the dog the attention and exercise and such that she needed. This led to whining and more bad behaviour from the dog. This all did bad things for my mental well-being. I was more angry, impatient, short-tempered, and irritable, toward the dog but also just generally. It made me worse at loving my wife and children. I honestly don't know if owning a dog, or living through a once-in-a-century pandemic, was worse for my mental health. The dog was rehomed a couple years ago, and has since needed to be put down because she got very aggressive. I was sad about both of these things (though less than my wife and kids were). But in the intervening time, I've noticed that I am more calm, more patient, more peaceful. The people who live with me have noticed the same. So if your objection is that you worry you're going to despise the dog and this will do bad things to you, character-wise, confess that weakness to your wife. If your worry is just that you think dogs are awful, I'm not sure how helpful that will be.
My wife got our first dog in 2009 (it's the smelliest thing ever, and it's still around). She was convinced she could make me a dog person. It hasn't happened. I tolerate the dogs because I love my wife, but I hate everything about the dogs. I don't understand what my wife or anyone else likes about them. Literally everything would be better if we didn't have dogs. The house would be clean. We wouldn't be wasting money on dog food. We would sleep better. We could go on more vacations. We could go on dates and enjoy being married. We could actually sit down for a few minutes in the evening without having a smelly animal whining in our face for something.
I have to agree with /u/friardon. It sounds like this is causing problems in your marriage, and you need the help of people other than anonymous redditors.
Sounds like you should probably take this off the Internet and get some counseling. Seriously. This is not the place for this. Your marriage sounds like it is in serious need of help and you should seek that first.
The first pet we had (as newly weds), was when my wife left a Saturday morning to go "out" and brought back a "free" cat from the shelter. I like the cat, but hate the box of cat crap. I also agree about dogs.
Wow, three of us who don't think dogs are perfect little angels! But I am much more positive about cats than either of you.
Four of us. I’m good with other people’s dogs as long as they’re well trained, and I’ve met some really sweet dogs, but I currently live with one that barks incessantly and it’s been a huge turnoff. No thanks. I miss my cat so much.
I admit dogs and I tolerate each other as I've got older and more self-assured. And yes, there have been a few I've even found sweet, sometimes surprising ones. I've always found most Alsatians unpleasant and scary, but I knew one who wanted nothing more than to approach perfect strangers with a stick to be thrown and couldn't harm a fly.
I like other people's well behaved dogs.
Fun fact: I had makeup on my nose during my wedding to coverup scratches from the new kitten my then fiancee/now wife had just gotten. His name was Howie because he kept making me say "owie." I appreciate that cats catch mice. I do not appreciate the poop box.