Discussion:
Question regarding aging from Carbon-14
(too old to reply)
Elijahovah
2010-03-02 13:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
A new realization has come my way. If you want true science then skip
the religion you don't like to read about and get to the conclusion.
So the question is:
What happens to a DNA molecule when a carbon-14 atom in it turns into
a nitrogen atom, and how does this effect the cell, or the human body
occurrng all over within it.

From 2369 BC January 6 until 2270 BC enough
increasing carbon-14 was produced from nitrogen 52 miles up
to cut all life in half. This is proven by the ages of Arpaxad
(conceived 2369 BC July 8; born 2368 BC April 4) living only 438 years
dying in 1930 BC, Shelah 433 years dying when III Ur's king IbbiSin
was killed in 1900 BC, and Eber dying in 1839 BC four years after
Abram died at 175 (satisfied with the success of his short days).
Those conceived in 2270 BC lived 230-239 years.

This clearly shows that the radiation of carbon-14 does not hurt the
internal cells of life, plants, animals, humans unless the carbon-14
atom is attached as part of a DNA molecule. A discovery I made in
theory in Feb 1985 and Jehovah's spirit inspired me to send this to
the WatchTower so that the great crowd does not die after Armageddon
from aging. Yet as with Moses sending 12 men all 40 years old into
Canaan, Jehovah had then already told Moses it would be rejected. This
would allow Moses to educate them 40 years in Sinai as he had been.
They had all known jehovah with their 40 years in The City, now it was
time to know Jehovah as 40 years in the wild land. Thus the fact two
came back with good report, does not change the fact that Moses was
seeking rejection that was predictable. He was not about to lead two
tribes into Canaan when intent was to educate them appreciation in
Sinai.
So too the WatchTower failed miserably in their feeding the sheep a
food purged of carbon-14 so that those old will grow young. I have
said to my JW mother who fails to see she will die after Armageddon,
yet she will dare say she is too old, she will die now before
Armageddon, it will not come this month. Yet she thinks she is
guaranteed youth by a mere survival 1 or 2 years thru it. Still, she
also sees no need for effort thru Armageddon, and I warned her, that
she will not see her great grand child if she doesnt make the effort
to take that child thru. People who feel they are too old to bother
with a trek if required, do not realize the youths they will save by
dragging them to the mountains even if as old people they die in that
trek or after they get there. Unless the young survive Armageddon,
there will be no human voice to call out in the name of the Christ-
wife to raise the dead.

As for the carbon-14. I have sought and sought a simple answer no one
ever gave me. Namely how does the carbon evolve as it decays. Is it
proton or neutron; does it turn into normal carbon-12 or back into
nitrogen-14. A year ago I was given the answer, it turns back into
nitrogen. Thus it may not be a carbon atom in a DNA molecule that
gives off radiation damaging cells to cause them to age faster. It
might be the DNA molecule is destroyed when the carbon atom turns back
into a nitrogen atom.
So the question is:
What happens to a DNA molecule when a carbon-14 atom in it turns into
a nitrogen atom, and how does this effect the cell, or the human body
occurrng all over within it.
The Other Guy
2010-03-02 14:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Elijahovah
A new realization has come my way.
Hopefully YOU realize, like we do, that you're mentally ill.
Matt Giwer
2010-03-03 05:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Elijahovah
A new realization has come my way. If you want true science then skip
the religion you don't like to read about and get to the conclusion.
What happens to a DNA molecule when a carbon-14 atom in it turns into
a nitrogen atom, and how does this effect the cell, or the human body
occurrng all over within it.
It would not hurt and might even do some good if you were to learn something
about radioactive decay some day.
--
The only possible future for the land between the Jordan and the Med is the
present situation. What is not clear is how long the world will permit it to
exist.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4320
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Tue Mar 2 23:59:01 EST 2010
JTEM
2010-03-03 06:30:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Elijahovah
A new realization has come my way.
        It would not hurt and might even do some good if
you were to learn something about radioactive decay
some day.
If you weren't a skanky, holocaust denying, Hitler loving
Nazi crack pot yourself you might've figured that there's
one or two personal "issues" the guy should address
first, before tackling his knowledge of radioactive decay.

....like the fact that he's bat shit crazy, for example.
Elijahovah
2010-03-03 09:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The topic isnt radioactive decay. That's where your arrogance proves
your stupidity as you read. The question goes unanswered by you; you
do not say what the DNA molecule will do when the carbon atom turns
into a nitrogen atom.
Elijahovah
2010-03-03 10:03:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Talk about HItler. I can see where Einstein's option would have been
to happily let Hitler wipe out all the shit in the world with a German
nuclear bomb. I cannot imagine Einstein even listening to the jest of
your posts or even have such people in a scientific convention with
him if they talked like you people do.
Matt Giwer
2010-03-04 07:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Elijahovah
The topic isnt radioactive decay. That's where your arrogance proves
your stupidity as you read. The question goes unanswered by you; you
do not say what the DNA molecule will do when the carbon atom turns
into a nitrogen atom.
One nucleic acid in one gene becomes different. It may or may not be in a
working gene. The chances are 5 to 1 against it being a working gene. If it is
in a working gene AND if it matters the unchanged gene will govern the protein
production. When it comes to mitosis the changed nucleic acid will not find a
match and will not be replicated.

This has happened in all living things since the first living thing. No magic
has been observed however that does not exclude magic.
--
Every time antisemitism is used to respond to criticism
of Israel it becomes more respectable.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4223
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
Thu Mar 4 02:52:44 EST 2010
Elijahovah
2010-03-04 10:02:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Elijahovah
The topic isnt radioactive decay. That's where your arrogance proves
your stupidity as you read. The question goes unanswered by you; you
do not say what the DNA molecule will do when the carbon atom turns
into a nitrogen atom
        One nucleic acid in one gene becomes different. It may or may not be in a
working gene. The chances are 5 to 1 against it being a working gene. If it is
in a working gene AND if it matters the unchanged gene will govern the protein
production. When it comes to mitosis the changed nucleic acid will not find a
match and will not be replicated.
        This has happened in all living things since the first living thing. No magic
has been observed however that does not exclude magic.
You say since life began with light shining on the ocean (48,000 years
ago on Day One of carbon-14 scale subtracting the 20,000 year illusion
of fallen water vapor canopy) but......
that canopy in Genesis says it has not happened without change in
ratio of longevity which has effected
all living cells of anything alive. The 40-foot vapor canopy caused a
12:1 difference
or at least 10:1 pending what you use as maximum or minimum life
777-969 years or
70-137 years (70-90 or 70-80). What is clear is that once the body is
full mass in maturity
the effect is far less because only the dying and replaced cells have
a chance of picking up a new carbon atom from food we eat.
This is evident from the fact Noah still reached 950 dispite eating
food for 350 years which his grandson ate for 30 years after the Flood
and the result was half the life (438 years). The vapor canopy was
gone on 2369 BC Jan 6 and he was conceived 2369 BC July 8 and born
2368 BC April 4. So the 30 years to 2339 BC was enough carbon-14 in
vegetation to cut his life in half. Contrast this then to Peleg
Mesanipada who was born in 2269 BC and ate vegetation until 2239 BC to
live only 239 years until 2030 BC. Thus we have preFlood 2400-2370 BC
(max longevity 970) in contrast to postFlood 2369-2339 BC (max
longevity 464) to 2269-2239 BC (max longevity 240) to Isaac 1918-1888
BC (max longevity 180) to Jannes 1650-1620 BC (max longevity 137) to
Moses 1594-1564 BC (max longevity 120) to his observation of 70-80
years longevity at his death in 1473 BC for those born who ate from
1553-1523 BC (max 80 years). Shorter life a result of diseases due to
short metabolism and chain results.
Elijahovah
2010-03-04 10:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If the odds are 5 to 1 then before the Flood (2369 BC Jan 6) the odds
were 50 to 1 or even 60 to 1 of being in that working gene. You say 5
to 1; does that mean 1 out of 5 genes are a working gene? Of course
beforethe Flood, we assume the odds are still 1 out of 5 genes are
also working genes (unless genes have been shut off by C-14); but that
ratio of which genes are working-genes does not include the ratio of
how many DNA carbon atoms are C-14 giving off radiation, and how many
DNA C-14 atoms are turning into nitrogen.
In any case that unknown information is 10-12 times less in numbers
before 2369 BC Jan 6 when it spikes during 100 years (2369-2269 BC)
and its mixture stirs over the next 716 years (2269-1553 BC).
Matt Giwer
2010-03-08 07:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Elijahovah
If the odds are 5 to 1 then before the Flood (2369 BC Jan 6) the odds
were 50 to 1 or even 60 to 1 of being in that working gene. You say 5
to 1; does that mean 1 out of 5 genes are a working gene? Of course
beforethe Flood, we assume the odds are still 1 out of 5 genes are
also working genes (unless genes have been shut off by C-14); but that
ratio of which genes are working-genes does not include the ratio of
how many DNA carbon atoms are C-14 giving off radiation, and how many
DNA C-14 atoms are turning into nitrogen.
In any case that unknown information is 10-12 times less in numbers
before 2369 BC Jan 6 when it spikes during 100 years (2369-2269 BC)
and its mixture stirs over the next 716 years (2269-1553 BC).
Dear dummy,

Unless a genetic change happens to appear in a sperm or egg that happens to
result in offspring that can reproduce it might as well never have happened.
--
The threshold of atrocity is 6,000,000 - 1.
The threshold of atrocity is six million minus one.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4235
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/is-seg.phtml a14
Mon Mar 8 02:41:21 EST 2010
Matt Giwer
2010-03-08 07:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Elijahovah
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Elijahovah
The topic isnt radioactive decay. That's where your arrogance proves
your stupidity as you read. The question goes unanswered by you; you
do not say what the DNA molecule will do when the carbon atom turns
into a nitrogen atom
One nucleic acid in one gene becomes different. It may or may not be in a
working gene. The chances are 5 to 1 against it being a working gene. If it is
in a working gene AND if it matters the unchanged gene will govern the protein
production. When it comes to mitosis the changed nucleic acid will not find a
match and will not be replicated.
This has happened in all living things since the first living thing. No magic
has been observed however that does not exclude magic.
You say since life began with light shining on the ocean (48,000 years
ago on Day One
I would not say something as ignorant and stupid as that unless I were
ridiculing idiots.
--
It does not matter what words are used.
It matters only what is understood.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4232
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo2/ a11
Mon Mar 8 02:39:50 EST 2010
Matt Giwer
2010-03-04 07:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Elijahovah
A new realization has come my way.
It would not hurt and might even do some good if
you were to learn something about radioactive decay
some day.
If you weren't a skanky, holocaust denying, Hitler loving
Nazi crack pot yourself you might've figured that there's
one or two personal "issues" the guy should address
first, before tackling his knowledge of radioactive decay.
It is not his knowledge of it being incomplete. It is that his fantasy has no
relation to it. If you were not a murdering zionists you would see that.
Post by JTEM
....like the fact that he's bat shit crazy, for example.
He does not post like a zionist animal. Zionist is intended as an adjective
rather than as a noun making animal redundant.
--
How would I know if I have had a good life?
I have never had another one to compare it to.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4233
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8
Thu Mar 4 02:47:14 EST 2010
JTEM
2010-03-04 16:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
        It is not his knowledge of it being incomplete.
It is that his fantasy has no relation to it. If you were
not a murdering zionists you would see that.
As has been pointed out numerous times -- just like most
of the other things you misrepresent as fact -- I'm not even
Jewish, let alone some kind of "Zionist."

You're proving my point. Your bigotry over rides your ability
to correctly perceive reality.
Matt Giwer
2010-03-10 08:17:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Matt Giwer
It is not his knowledge of it being incomplete.
It is that his fantasy has no relation to it. If you were
not a murdering zionists you would see that.
As has been pointed out numerous times -- just like most
of the other things you misrepresent as fact -- I'm not even
Jewish, let alone some kind of "Zionist."
You're proving my point. Your bigotry over rides your ability
to correctly perceive reality.
Anti-Zionism is a moral imperative. You are on the wrong side of history.
--
Obama's greatest accomplishment is taking the US down the road to communism,
threatening to take all guns and simultaneously accomplishing nothing.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4241
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
Wed Mar 10 03:15:45 EST 2010
Loading...