Isn't it true that the more a group tries to censor it's members, the more suspect it is?

[Thermos aquaticus]

Your precious lucy was one of 300 partial fossils of an extinct primate, why am I wrong about that ? She fits the evolutionary paradigm, so, she fits the creationary paradigm as well, so. The more you post, the more I think you need help. That makes her creation science evidence.

What features would a fossil need in order to not fit the creationism paradigm? How does a fossil with a mixture of human and ape features fit the creationism paradigm to begin with?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Wow, your feelings are hurt, calm down, it's just a discussion on a computer screen, try and cover your exposed nerves, if you can.

Are you just frustrated again? Sorry. That's when you lower your debating bar and make it personal. You seem hurt. If that's my fault, sorry. I'm just making my case in an impersonal manner.

Besides, what do I have to be emotional about here? I told you that I am not bringing science to you until you make a good faith effort to show genuine interest in it, and that science done by Christians does not come from their Christianity, Anybody is free to employ the humanist methods : skepticism and empiricism. As long as they leave faith out of the process, they'll be fine. Skepticism and empiricism is not Christianity and doesn't come from Christianity. The basic tenets of Christianity are all faith based.

As soon as a scientist sticks a faith based thought into the works, the train of reason is derailed and it's not science. It's religion. That's what happened to the intelligent design program. Somebody inserted an unfound god believed in by faith into the process, and it's been sterile since.

To better illustrate, if adding a column of numbers, as long as one adheres rigidly to the rules of arithmetic, he will arrive at his intended destination, the correct sum. Throw in one faith based belief, such that 2 + 2 = 5, and it's over even if all of the rest of the arithmetic is correct - especially if all of the remaining arithmetic is correct. The only hope of arriving at the correct answer now would be making an error that offset that one, like 2 + 2 = 3.

Those aren't emotional topics to me, but they apparently are to youl

Wait, Copernicus, Linnaeus, Newton, Mendel, et. al. weren't Christians, or weren't foundational in science, or weren't scientists , pick one.

You pick one. Those aren't my arguments. They must be yours.

Do you actually have the temerity to state that their belief structure had nothing to do with their discoveries ? Or that they somehow had to "unchain" themselves from part of their belief structure to make their discoveries ?

Their Christian beliefs had nothing to do with their science. It's where they departed from them that they made inroads.

Newton's work that we still read and use has no religion in it, and is exactly what an atheist would have come up with. Calculus, optic, dynamics, gravitational theory - none have gods in them, none of them came from the Bible. They came from a fertile mind that had learned how to segregate and compartmentalize his faith based beliefs so that they did not contaminate his rigorous work.

you cannot acknowledge that I, one of those ignorant Christians, can possibly understand the scientific method, or the magical mystery tour of abiogenisis, or, sin of sin's, DARE criticise the holy of holies, Mr. Darwins theory.

Again, your argument. I said no such thing. You could probably learn them, but you don't seem to have much motivation to do so. You couldn't be bothered to request offered abiogenesis links, and you don't seem to understand the basics of science.

You hide behind your self proclaimed superiority so you may avoid the very difficult questions regarding your beliefs. Nah, nah, nah, I know but I won't tell you !

You must be projecting a sense of inferiority. I've never proclaimed myself to be superior to you. I know more about a lot of things, especially the topics we're discussing now, but I imagine you know more in other areas, maybe Boy Scouts or Islam.

What hiding? Here I am.

And I am avoid nothing other than doing the legwork for another faith based thinker feigning that he can be moved by evidence, demanding it, not looking at it, and then proclaiming that it proved nothing. I told you that I'm not here to teach you, and have no hope of you ever critically evaluating an argument. You keep saying that there is no evidence for abiogenesis. You must mean for you. And you clearly intend to keep it that way.

So you have no reason to expect anything more from me until you do your part, and I think we know that that's never going to happen.

As to Dr. Bailey, He is what you say can't exist, a scientist, a prominent researcher, an extremely skilled surgeon, as well as being a creationist.

Once again, that must be your argument, because it isn't mine.

Evidence doesn´t frighten me. In fact I spent my entire career collecting and evaluating me. Your precious lucy was one of 300 partial fossils of an extinct primate, why am I wrong about that ? She fits the evolutionary paradigm, so, she fits the creationary paradigm as well, so. The more you post, the more I think you need help. That makes her creation science evidence.

You're not doing so well with evidence here. Lucy supports only the scientific theory, not creationism. Darwin's theory predicts finding creatures like Lucy. Creationism doesn't. This is restricted choice again. With creationism, Lucy might or might not have existed. With evolution several somethings like Lucy must have existed, older forms being more chimplike, and newer ones more manlike - exactly what we find.

 

[shmogie]

Are you just frustrated again? Sorry. That's when you lower your debating bar and make it personal. You seem hurt. If that's my fault, sorry. I'm just making my case in an impersonal manner.

Besides, what do I have to be emotional about here? I told you that I am not bringing science to you until you make a good faith effort to show genuine interest in it, and that science done by Christians does not come from their Christianity, Anybody is free to employ the humanist methods : skepticism and empiricism. As long as they leave faith out of the process, they'll be fine. Skepticism and empiricism is not Christianity and doesn't come from Christianity. The basic tenets of Christianity are all faith based.

As soon as a scientist sticks a faith based thought into the works, the train of reason is derailed and it's not science. It's religion. That's what happened to the intelligent design program. Somebody inserted an unfound god believed in by faith into the process, and it's been sterile since.

To better illustrate, if adding a column of numbers, as long as one adheres rigidly to the rules of arithmetic, he will arrive at his intended destination, the correct sum. Throw in one faith based belief, such that 2 + 2 = 5, and it's over even if all of the rest of the arithmetic is correct - especially if all of the remaining arithmetic is correct. The only hope of arriving at the correct answer now would be making an error that offset that one, like 2 + 2 = 3.

Those aren't emotional topics to me, but they apparently are to youl



You pick one. Those aren't my arguments. They must be yours.



Their Christian beliefs had nothing to do with their science. It's where they departed from them that they made inroads.

Newton's work that we still read and use has no religion in it, and is exactly what an atheist would have come up with. Calculus, optic, dynamics, gravitational theory - none have gods in them, none of them came from the Bible. They came from a fertile mind that had learned how to segregate and compartmentalize his faith based beliefs so that they did not contaminate his rigorous work.



Again, your argument. I said no such thing. You could probably learn them, but you don't seem to have much motivation to do so. You couldn't be bothered to request offered abiogenesis links, and you don't seem to understand the basics of science.



You must be projecting a sense of inferiority. I've never proclaimed myself to be superior to you. I know more about a lot of things, especially the topics we're discussing now, but I imagine you know more in other areas, maybe Boy Scouts or Islam.

What hiding? Here I am.

And I am avoid nothing other than doing the legwork for another faith based thinker feigning that he can be moved by evidence, demanding it, not looking at it, and then proclaiming that it proved nothing. I told you that I'm not here to teach you, and have no hope of you ever critically evaluating an argument. You keep saying that there is no evidence for abiogenesis. You must mean for you. And you clearly intend to keep it that way.

So you have no reason to expect anything more from me until you do your part, and I think we know that that's never going to happen.



Once again, that must be your argument, because it isn't mine.



You're not doing so well with evidence here. Lucy supports only the scientific theory, not creationism. Darwin's theory predicts finding creatures like Lucy. Creationism doesn't. This is restricted choice again. With creationism, Lucy might or might not have existed. With evolution several somethings like Lucy must have existed, older forms being more chimplike, and newer ones more manlike - exactly what we find.

To the rest, simply more of your balderdash. Lucy is a creature, one of 300 fragmented skeletons, that evolutionists claim represent a phase of primate evolution.

These 300 fossils have to represent, for this to be true, an entire sustainable population that existed in time long enough to develop variations onto the next phase, a long time. 300 net doesn't meet the standard for being a sustainable population over thousands of years.

The issue isn';t relevant though, even if there were a million of them. They aren't human, they are animals who share some.design characteristics with humans. Creationism expects, and predicts this. We also recognize that many species became extinct, and this animal is no exception. We also know that evolutionists have taken limited fossils of a species, with rarely occurring mutations, and described them as an evolutionary change for the species. My goodness, evolutionists took one cobbled together skeleton of poor old mr. Piltdown as a profound discovery in evolution, because that is exactly what they wanted and were expecting.

Lucy may or may not be an actual species, as opposed to being some kind of sport of another species, no matter, she is an animal that lived and died, nothing more

 

[Neb]

You don't seem to understand. Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. It does not matter where life came from. Why even ask? You are attempting to move the goalposts again.

So, how life began if "Abiogenesis is not part of evolution."?

And scientists have far from "hit the wall" on abiogenesis. I am more than happy to discuss that once we go over evolution. One idea at a time. You need to understand the basics of science first, as I have pointed out more than once here.

"You need to understand the basics of science first" What is that mean?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, how life began if "Abiogenesis is not part of evolution."?

Nope, never was part of the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage. It is something that we know that happened, we merely do not have all of the details yet. I could go over that, but as I said, not until you understand evolution. Right now you are trying to move the goal posts. Evolution occurred even if a god magically poofed the first life into existence. Bringing it up is a red herring.

"You need to understand the basics of science first" What is that mean?

It means that you do not even appear to understand the scientific method. You already demonstrated that you do not even understand the rather easy concept of scientific evidence, or did you forget how you failed on the "Lucy" question?

 

[shmogie]

So, how life began if "Abiogenesis is not part of evolution."?
"You need to understand the basics of science first" What is that mean?

It means he is trying to establish his superiority over you at the start.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It means he is trying to establish his superiority over you at the start.

When it comes to the sciences that was demonstrated a long time ago. I am not saying that you two can't learn, but it is abundantly clear that neither of you have a clue.

shmogie, I saw from one of your posts that you were in law enforcement. If I tried to tell you how you have to handle a suspect, and how to do police work you would probably be rolling on the floor in laughter. Just think about that when you get outside of your comfort zone.

 

[Neb]

Nope, never was part of the theory of evolution.

Life gotta start someplace or from something to support evolution, right?

Abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage.

Hypothesis needs evidence. Is the theory of evolution your evidence? So, it’s like the theory of evolution first then you hypothesize abiogenesis later on to support the theory of evolution. IOW, abiogenesis “was part of the theory of evolution.”, right?

It is something that we know that happened, we merely do not have all of the details yet.

According to the Bible, and this is with written history, not even prehistoric, flood happened during Noah’s time. We knew it happened because we read it in the Bible and this is our evidence unlike your primitive soup no evidence at all, therefore, you cannot even call it “Abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage”.

I could go over that, but as I said, not until you understand evolution. Right now you are trying to move the goal posts. Evolution occurred even if a god magically poofed the first life into existence. Bringing it up is a red herring.

Why is this NOT relevant if you knew that it “happened”?

 

[Neb]

It means that you do not even appear to understand the scientific method.

When you start doing the math then you’re the man and I will argue no more. We are just layman here putting our .02 cents.

You already demonstrated that you do not even understand the rather easy concept of scientific evidence, or did you forget how you failed on the "Lucy" question?

Lucy? I thought we are over with this already? Lucy’s bones were NOT directly dated by any dating method, i.e., with the Ar-Ar and K-Ar dating methods nor with C-14. Your dating method is flawed.

For example, when a sample of the lava in the Mt. St. Helens crater (that had been observed to form and cool in 1986) was analyzed in 1996, it contained so much argon-40 that it had a calculated “age” of 350,000 years!

Now, how did they get 350,000 years in just 10 years? Half-life is the answer.

If you measure this same rock found in Mt. St. Helens using the rubidium and strontium isotopes you would get over a billion years in just 10 years.

IOW, each element is calibrated into each own millions of years. If you get 350,000 years in potassium/argon isotopes then you would probably get over a billion years in rubidium/strontium isotopes sampling the same rock.

Use your common sense, in just 10 years it yields 350,000 years. That’s 35,000 per year. So, if you divide Lucy’s age, i.e., 3,200,000 years old to 35,000yrs. you should see 91.42 years only and not the 3,200,000 and that would make Lucy a chimp and not a human.

 

[Neb]

It means he is trying to establish his superiority over you at the start.

I'm aware of this tactic

 

[Subduction Zone]

Life gotta start someplace or from something to support evolution, right?

Yep, so what?

Hypothesis needs evidence. Is the theory of evolution your evidence? So, it’s like the theory of evolution first then you hypothesize abiogenesis later on to support the theory of evolution. IOW, abiogenesis “was part of the theory of evolution.”, right?

No, the theory of evolution is not the evidence for abiogenesis. What makes you think that? Please you need to stop asking foolish questions. Here is a hint, don't try to bury an assumption in your question. It will almost always demonstrate your ignorance when you do so.

Try again with a proper question.

According to the Bible, and this is with written history, not even prehistoric, flood happened during Noah’s time. We knew it happened because we read it in the Bible and this is our evidence unlike your primitive soup no evidence at all, therefore, you cannot even call it “Abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage”.[/quoite]

Yes, but we know that it did not happen because such an event would leave massive amounts of evidence behind and there is no evidence at all for a worldwide flood. Relying on a book of myths is not a wise debating technique.

Why is this NOT relevant if you knew that it “happened”?

Once again, that some sort of abiogenesis event occurred is not even debated by creationists. Many of them try to deny it but they refute their own myths by doing so. Where the first life came from does not matter to evolution. That makes it irrelevant.

I can only think of three possible scenarios:

Life arose naturally.

First life was deposited by aliens.

First life was poofed magically into existence.

To evolution it makes no difference. Evolution does not discriminate, that is why it is a red herring.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm aware of this tactic

Now please, don't help shmogie in his personal attack. I did not say that you can't learn. I have not insulted your intelligence. I have merely pointed out that in this area you two are largely ignorant. We are all ignorant in certain areas. Ignorance can be cured by education. You should be concentrating on an education right now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you start doing the math then you’re the man and I will argue no more. We are just layman here putting our .02 cents.

What are you blathering about?

Lucy? I thought we are over with this already? Lucy’s bones were NOT directly dated by any dating method, i.e., with the Ar-Ar and K-Ar dating methods nor with C-14. Your dating method is flawed.

Me too. You lost. And no, your error was explained to you. Let me go over it into more detail. When something is deposited into a sedimentary layer everything in that one layer was deposited at the "same time". At least on a geological time scale. Somewhere below here a ashflow was found and dated. Somewhere above her an ashflow was found and dated. She has to be between those two dates. Do you understand?

For example, when a sample of the lava in the Mt. St. Helens crater (that had been observed to form and cool in 1986) was analyzed in 1996, it contained so much argon-40 that it had a calculated “age” of 350,000 years!

I am sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. There are ways to screw up when you date something and that was the case then. You will not find this in peer reviewed literature because the error was so obvious that it would have been rejected. Link an article I will refute it for you. You are relying upon idiots and liars for support. In the world of science real science is done through peer review today.

Now, how did they get 350,000 years in just 10 years? Half-life is the answer.

Nope, the most likely answer is xenocryst or xenolyths.

If you measure this same rock found in Mt. St. Helens using the rubidium and strontium isotopes you would get over a billion years in just 10 years.

IOW, each element is calibrated into each own millions of years. If you get 350,000 years in potassium/argon isotopes then you would probably get over a billion years in rubidium/strontium isotopes sampling the same rock.

Use your common sense, in just 10 years it yields 350,000 years. That’s 35,000 per year. So, if you divide Lucy’s age, i.e., 3,200,000 years old to 35,000yrs. you should see 91.42 years only and not the 3,200,000 and that would make Lucy a chimp and not a human.

Once again, articles please. You are relying on sites where the workers have to promise not to use the scientific method. That means by definition that their work is not science.

 

[shmogie]

I'm aware of this tactic

Good, I'll butt out, you are doing fine !

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just for fun I went looking for this dating of Mt. St Helens. Of course the incredibly dishonest Steve Austin was behind it and he probably made the same error he made in other work that he did:

Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really 1 Million Years Old?

And here is his problem:

"In June of 1992, Dr. Austin collected a 15 lb. block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed, sieved, and processed into a whole rock powder as well as four mineral concentrates. "

When it comes to lava flows xenocrysts are quite common. Especially if the material is already partially crystallized. He picked out individual crystals to date too, and that is all but guaranteed to give you a false old date. When you do so you go after larger identifiable crystals. Those will be crystals that formed before the eruption. Larger crystal do not form quickly. They were formed before the eruption. The way that one dates a very young flow is to go after the background matrix of fine crystals. Then one can hope to have a correct date, but even then one must be cautious.

Steve Austin knows this. He purposefully uses incorrect techniques to "date" objects. That makes him a liar since he knows what he is doing wrong and yet he goes ahead and does so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good, I'll butt out, you are doing fine !

LOL! Seriously shmogie both of you are looking very bad. As a former law enforcement person you and Neb sound like a couple of "Sovereign Citizens" here. In case you have never heard of them here is one such example of a police Sovereign Citizen confrontation:

The SC drops the F bomb a few times, but you will be rolling on the floor if you have not heard this before.

 

[shmogie]

What features would a fossil need in order to not fit the creationism paradigm? How does a fossil with a mixture of human and ape features fit the creationism paradigm to begin with?

So, similarity or shared features define close relationships. Flying is a feature, are all animals that fly closely related ? there are hundreds, maybe thousands of others. Who gets to decide which similar features mean close relationships and which don't ? A list used to bring order suddenly becomes the absolute law ?

 

[shmogie]

Not knowing the origin of life or the origin of the universe fits in just fine with atheism. I am an atheist and I don't know how life started or how the universe started. I think those are fascinating questions, and the scientific research into those questions is also fascinating. If evidence comes to light that a deity was involved in the origin of life or the origin of the universe then I will happily accept it. Until there is evidence of how these things originated I will continue to say that I don't know.

The logical error that skeptics point to is called the argument from ignorance. This is where people insert their own beliefs in a gap in our knowledge, also called the God of the Gaps. It is summed up in the argument, "Well, since you can't prove abiogenesis then you can't prove that God didn't do it". The problem is that the actions of any deity need to be as evidenced as abiogenesis would need to be, and that evidence is lacking.

Or, if you can't prove God did it, you can;t prove abiogenisis didn't do it. Exactly the same, the empty theory of the gaps.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, similarity or shared features define close relationships. Flying is a feature, are all animals that fly closely related ? there are hundreds, maybe thousands of others. Who gets to decide which similar features mean close relationships and which don't ? A list used to bring order suddenly becomes the absolute law ?

One analyzes more than just activity. One looks for violations of phylogeny to see if a member belongs to a group or not. For example if one looks at the shape of a dolphin and a fish one will see similarities. But a clear violation of phylogeny is seen when one looks at their skeletons, especially their fins. You will find that the fins of a dolphin are far closer to yours than they are to a fish:

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Or, if you can't prove God did it, you can;t prove abiogenisis didn't do it. Exactly the same, the empty theory of the gaps.

You start with "I don't know". What is wrong with that?