Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

[ratiocinator]

Ever seen the evolution charts used in schools ? They imply stronngly abiogenesis.

How do you work that out? How can an evolution chart imply how life first started? The idea that all life is descended from a common ancestor (which an evolution chart might well show), is backed up by plenty of evidence.

Saying life began in a primitive atmosphere on a relatively new planet by natural combinations of matter isn´t research.

On the other hand, just saying life began in a primitive atmosphere on a relatively new planet is, backed up by evidence. The natural start is an obvious working assumption.

How would you want it taught? Is it really credible to say anything other than this is a problem science hasn't found a solution to yet?

 

[ecco]

They believe life did come about by 'natural' processes. They only seek explanations that fit that belief. They only interpret things with their 'religion' in mind. A belief system that competes with Scripture and opposes it can be called a religion.

My post #520 applies equally to you and shmoogie.

 

[Jose Fly]

My daughters teacher. What my daughter said. School board meetings.

So that's two people....one person here and your daughter's teacher. I'm curious....was her teacher an atheist?

No, that is not my only complaint. My complaint is ignorant people who view the research for abiogenesis as being far more conclusive than it is, a chimera

Let's look at some of the things you've said in this thread in light of the fact that in reality, you've only specified two people expressing this viewpoint.

"Ah, the atheist interlocutory decree on abiogenesis. Science does not know how it happened, but will, therefore it is proven to be true."

"I have run into many highly intelligent atheists, many in this forum, who believe and say that abiogenesis is fact."

"This is my big beef regarding abiogenesis. Millions believe it has been proven to have occurred"

"My sole objection is that intelligent people buy into the imaginary process as if it was established scientific fact."

"You don´t have the faith, good for you. I assure you that millions do."

"I made no accusation of you, I was simply stating what is common."​

Seems like there's a pretty big gap between some of your claims about "millions", "many", and what is "common", and what you've been able to specify.

 

[Jose Fly]

High school textbooks certainly do mention abiogenesis, again, as a starting point for evolution, It isn ´t described as an unknown mystery,which it is, it is described as being likely, and the old canard Miller Urey is trotted out.

Can you quote directly from such textbooks?

 

[ecco]

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

Abiogenesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Origin of life" redirects here. For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth.​

Emphasis in the above is mine

High school textbooks certainly do mention abiogenesis,

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

The earliest known life-forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms, found in hydrothermal vent precipitates, that may have lived as early as 4.28 billion years ago, relatively soon after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.[1][2]
Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. This article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.

​

I think that it's highly probable that any highschool textbook article regarding abiogenesis would read similar to the above. There is nothing in the above that is not 100% factual.


Nevertheless, highschool textbooks and your daughter's fifth-grade readers are two entirely different things. With all the controversy caused at her school and the subsequent school board meetings, I bet there were articles in the local newspapers about it. It's too bad you can't produce any of them so we could evaluate how far the teacher was stepping over the line.

 

[dad]

What conflicts? What do you imagine I am conflicted about?

God's word?

17And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
​

No matter how much you and the Ken Ham's wish and pray, the earth was not covered by a flood within the past 10,000 years.

​

As I said...
You CAN NOT accept any science that conflicts with Genesis.

Your personal opinion and attitude towards other beliefs and Scripture aside, sorry, not interested in your beliefs.

 

[dad]

It's hypocritically funny that you have now been reduced to referring to science as whacked out evo fairy tales. Ten thousand of your fellow Christian Clergymen disagree with you. Ten thousand of your fellow Christian Clergymen state you "deliberately embrace scientific ignorance".

I don't care if ten thousand flies disagree with the truth, and you think they couldn't possibly be wrong.

 

[ecco]

Your personal opinion and attitude towards other beliefs and Scripture aside, sorry, not interested in your beliefs.

First, you talk about my conflicts and, when I asked what conflicts you were referring to, you were silent.

Now you talk about my personal opinion and attitude. I did not post a personal opinion.

I posted chapter and verse regarding the flood from YOUR Bible.
I posted fact regarding science's findings as regards to the flood written about in Your Bible.

Why are you having such a difficult time understanding and responding to very elementary English?
Why are you unable to respond to my actual postings?

Those questions were, of course, rhetorical. Your need to duck and dodge is well documented.

 

[ecco]

I don't care if ten thousand flies disagree with the truth, and you think they couldn't possibly be wrong.

But I didn't write anything about 10,000 flies. I told you about ten thousand Christian Clergy who have accepted Evolution. Their opinion and beliefs should mean something to you. You are always attacking atheist evolutionists. When shown that ten thousand Christian clergy accept ToE, all you can do is put your head in the sand and pretend they are mindless flies. They aren't. These are people who accept the Bible and teach the Bible and are probably constantly asked questions about the Bible.

I know you don't care what they think, but now you are aware that they do exist. So, if in the future, you conflate belief in Evolution with atheism, it will not be out of ignorance. It will be out of dishonesty.

 

[dad]

First, you talk about my conflicts and, when I asked what conflicts you were referring to, you were silent.

Now you talk about my personal opinion and attitude. I did not post a personal opinion.

I posted chapter and verse regarding the flood from YOUR Bible.
I posted fact regarding science's findings as regards to the flood written about in Your Bible.

Why are you having such a difficult time understanding and responding to very elementary English?
Why are you unable to respond to my actual postings?

Those questions were, of course, rhetorical. Your need to duck and dodge is well documented.

Your opinion about the flood has no value unless you post evidence.
Not sure why you post here since you have failed to prop up your evo religion.

 

[dad]

But I didn't write anything about 10,000 flies. I told you about ten thousand Christian Clergy who have accepted Evolution. Their opinion and beliefs should mean something to you. You are always attacking atheist evolutionists. When shown that ten thousand Christian clergy accept ToE, all you can do is put your head in the sand and pretend they are mindless flies. They aren't. These are people who accept the Bible and teach the Bible and are probably constantly asked questions about the Bible.

I know you don't care what they think, but now you are aware that they do exist. So, if in the future, you conflate belief in Evolution with atheism, it will not be out of ignorance. It will be out of dishonesty.

You don't think thousands of non bible believing clergy could be wrong. Fine...you have an opinion. Now either make a bible case or a science case and quit the groaning.

 

[gnostic]

Ever seen the evolution charts used in schools ? They imply stronngly abiogenesis.

Evolution is all about biodiversity, not about the origin of first life.

Without seeing what this chart look like, I cannot say one way or another, if it has anything to do with Abiogenesis.

But my guess, is that the chart could just be displaying common ancestry of specific animal and the family it belonged to, which would be normal for teaching Evolution, and has nothing to do with Abiogenesis.

But I can’t say for sure, unless you show me that the actual chart that this 5th grade teacher was using in the classroom.

Do you have this chart?

 

[gnostic]

Your opinion about the flood has no value unless you post evidence.

The Genesis make the claims that the Flood covered all the lands (7:21-23), including the highest mountains (7:19-20), killed every land creatures and humans (7:21-23) except those aboard the ark, Noah didn’t leave the ark until 1 year later, on top of Mount Ararat (8:4).

All lands and all of the high mountains tell us that the flood was global, not local or large regional flood.

There are actually two peaks at Mount Ararat, the highest (elevation) is the Greater Ararat (GA) at 5137 metres, Little Ararat (LA) at 3896 metres. Comparing these to Mount Everest (ME) of 8848 m, I don’t see how Genesis Flood can cover these mountains, not even that of Little Ararat, because of the volume of water required to cover Ararat’s shorter peak is massive.

Now you could say these mountains were shorter in the early Bronze Age than they are today. I have seen such excuses made by creationists before. And these excuses and claims are false.

Even if all the ice and snow around the world, were to hypothetically melt today, the sea level will only rise to less 220 metres. That no where near the height of even smaller peak, Little Ararat. There is still no way for water to cover mountains, or for any ship to land on mount Ararat.

And people have been combing this areas for the ark, and found no evidence of any such vessel existing in this region. And nothing to indicate geologically that Ararat has been underwater around 4500 years ago.

Plus, how did all the animals that were save in the ark, and travel from Ararat, to places like North and South America or to Australia and New Zealand.

I am from Australia. And if Genesis happened as it say, then you would expect to trails of dead marsupials, like kangaroos, koala bears, wombats, etc, from Asia. There are no evidences of such marsupials in Asia. And kolas and wombats are not know for long trekking, where they could easily be killed by predators.

Genesis Flood is not only a myth, it is also unrealistic.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The Genesis make the claims that the Flood covered all the lands (7:21-23), including the highest mountains (7:19-20), killed every land creatures and humans (7:21-23) except those aboard the ark, Noah didn’t leave the ark until 1 year later, on top of Mount Ararat (8:4).

All lands and all of the high mountains tell us that the flood was global, not local or large regional flood.

There are actually two peaks at Mount Ararat, the highest (elevation) is the Greater Ararat (GA) at 5137 metres, Little Ararat (LA) at 3896 metres. Comparing these to Mount Everest (ME) of 8848 m, I don’t see how Genesis Flood can cover these mountains, not even that of Little Ararat, because of the volume of water required to cover Ararat’s shorter peak is massive.

Now you could say these mountains were shorter in the early Bronze Age than they are today. I have seen such excuses made by creationists before. And these excuses and claims are false.

Even if all the ice and snow around the world, were to hypothetically melt today, the sea level will only rise to less 220 metres. That no where near the height of even smaller peak, Little Ararat. There is still no way for water to cover mountains, or for any ship to land on mount Ararat.

And people have been combing this areas for the ark, and found no evidence of any such vessel existing in this region. And nothing to indicate geologically that Ararat has been underwater around 4500 years ago.

Plus, how did all the animals that were save in the ark, and travel from Ararat, to places like North and South America or to Australia and New Zealand.

I am from Australia. And if Genesis happened as it say, then you would expect to trails of dead marsupials, like kangaroos, koala bears, wombats, etc, from Asia. There are no evidences of such marsupials in Asia. And kolas and wombats are not know for long trekking, where they could easily be killed by predators.

Genesis Flood is not only a myth, it is also unrealistic.

The usual creationist response to the water issue is to say that it came from beneath the earth and also that there was a vast amount of water in the atmosphere that suddenly condensed for some reason. They seem to ignore the physics of all this.

 

[shmogie]

How do you work that out? How can an evolution chart imply how life first started? The idea that all life is descended from a common ancestor (which an evolution chart might well show), is backed up by plenty of evidence.



On the other hand, just saying life began in a primitive atmosphere on a relatively new planet is, backed up by evidence. The natural start is an obvious working assumption.

How would you want it taught? Is it really credible to say anything other than this is a problem science hasn't found a solution to yet?

So that's two people....one person here and your daughter's teacher. I'm curious....was her teacher an atheist?


Let's look at some of the things you've said in this thread in light of the fact that in reality, you've only specified two people expressing this viewpoint.

"Ah, the atheist interlocutory decree on abiogenesis. Science does not know how it happened, but will, therefore it is proven to be true."

"I have run into many highly intelligent atheists, many in this forum, who believe and say that abiogenesis is fact."

"This is my big beef regarding abiogenesis. Millions believe it has been proven to have occurred"

"My sole objection is that intelligent people buy into the imaginary process as if it was established scientific fact."

"You don´t have the faith, good for you. I assure you that millions do."

"I made no accusation of you, I was simply stating what is common."​

Seems like there's a pretty big gap between some of your claims about "millions", "many", and what is "common", and what you've been able to specify.

You haven´t paid attention to the threads in this forum where these discussions come up. In this thread is a poster, not the one I alluded to, who says abiogenisis had to have happened. This essential thought has been repeated by multiple posters over the years.

I suggest that you ask the average high school graduate how life began. Read the newspaper mangled stories about alleged discoveries re abiogenesis. Each one is heralded as a major step in explaining the origin of life. Yet these reported major steps have been occurring for 50 years, and every story refers to abiogenesis as what needs to be explained, as if it actually happened.

¨"Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted. What remains to be done is to find the scenarioś which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which it happened . One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom , a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written"
H.P. Yockey, "A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67: 377-398, 1977.
True in 1977, true today.

Here are some current textbooks that support my observations. Glencoe Biology: the dynamics of life. Prentice Hall Biology, Campbell. Prentice Hall Biology, Miller. Holt Biology. All commonly used.

 

[shmogie]

Evolution is all about biodiversity, not about the origin of first life.

Without seeing what this chart look like, I cannot say one way or another, if it has anything to do with Abiogenesis.

But my guess, is that the chart could just be displaying common ancestry of specific animal and the family it belonged to, which would be normal for teaching Evolution, and has nothing to do with Abiogenesis.

But I can’t say for sure, unless you show me that the actual chart that this 5th grade teacher was using in the classroom.

Do you have this chart?

Nope, but it illustrated the precursor simple organism from abiogenesis as itś starting point. Seeing the alleged progression of life kids ask where the first organism came from. The correct answer is "we don´t know.´ Most respond properly. It is illegal for a teacher to say from God, but some say things like, "ït arose naturally from the earth¨, or like responses.

My wife was business manager of our school district before we retired. The Superintendent of the district and his wife are very good friends. My wife was secretary of the school board.

I have a very good idea of what is going on.

 

[Jose Fly]

You haven´t paid attention to the threads in this forum where these discussions come up. In this thread is a poster, not the one I alluded to, who says abiogenisis had to have happened. This essential thought has been repeated by multiple posters over the years.

Well yeah. As has been pointed out many times, we know that at one point there was no life on earth and then there was. Therefore life on earth had to have had a starting point; that's what we're all talking about. Exactly how that happened remains unknown.

You seem to be conflating people saying the above with them saying "it's been proven that it happened via X chemical pathway".

I suggest that you ask the average high school graduate how life began. Read the newspaper mangled stories about alleged discoveries re abiogenesis. Each one is heralded as a major step in explaining the origin of life. Yet these reported major steps have been occurring for 50 years, and every story refers to abiogenesis as what needs to be explained, as if it actually happened.

Yep, I'd say you are indeed making the error described above.

¨"Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted. What remains to be done is to find the scenarioś which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which it happened . One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom , a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written"
H.P. Yockey, "A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67: 377-398, 1977.
True in 1977, true today.

Again, same thing. If you can't understand and appreciate the difference between "we know life on earth had a starting point which involved single-celled organisms around 3 billion years ago" and "we know exactly how life on earth began", I'm afraid there's not much else we can do.

Here are some current textbooks that support my observations. Glencoe Biology: the dynamics of life. Prentice Hall Biology, Campbell. Prentice Hall Biology, Miller. Holt Biology. All commonly used.

You're going to have to quote the sections on the OOL from those textbooks. Merely stating their titles is insufficient to support your assertions.

 

[dad]

The Genesis make the claims that the Flood covered all the lands (7:21-23), including the highest mountains (7:19-20), killed every land creatures and humans (7:21-23) except those aboard the ark, Noah didn’t leave the ark until 1 year later, on top of Mount Ararat (8:4).

All lands and all of the high mountains tell us that the flood was global, not local or large regional flood.

False. The mountains we see today were mostly uplifted/built quickly after the flood! You see the rapid continental separation was post flood I deduce. That did make it possible for animals to get around the world as well as men also!

Now you could say these mountains were shorter in the early Bronze Age than they are today. I have seen such excuses made by creationists before. And these excuses and claims are false.

Or your claim is false. Perhaps some evidence might elevate your claim if it is supposed to be a science based one.

Even if all the ice and snow around the world, were to hypothetically melt today, the sea level will only rise to less 220 metres. That no where near the height of even smaller peak, Little Ararat. There is still no way for water to cover mountains, or for any ship to land on mount Ararat.

There likely were no high mountains, and there is certainly no need to try and explain all the water of the flood with what we see on earth today. It is possible that the same windows of heaven that opened up to bring the water to the planet were used in conveying some of the waters off again!

And people have been combing this areas for the ark, and found no evidence of any such vessel existing in this region. And nothing to indicate geologically that Ararat has been underwater around 4500 years ago.

Since there likely was worldwide pushing of plates/uplift/mountain building after the time the ark landed, that is not an issue at all. I suspect that the ark may have landed not all that far away from Israel, but that with the plate movements etc...have affected how the areas are aligned today! It could have been the mount of Olives that the doves got their fresh leaf from!? Ha (Eden also was likely near there in my humble opinion)

Plus, how did all the animals that were save in the ark, and travel from Ararat, to places like North and South America or to Australia and New Zealand.

Wafted on the fast moving continental land masses!

I am from Australia. And if Genesis happened as it say, then you would expect to trails of dead marsupials, like kangaroos, koala bears, wombats, etc, from Asia. There are no evidences of such marsupials in Asia. And kolas and wombats are not know for long trekking, where they could easily be killed by predators.

Nope. Rapid evolving/adapting was a feature of that former nature and I deduce that the nature change was well over a century after the flood. Piece o cake.

 

[gnostic]

False. The mountains we see today were mostly uplifted/built quickly after the flood! You see the rapid continental separation was post flood I deduce. That did make it possible for animals to get around the world as well as men also!


Or your claim is false. Perhaps some evidence might elevate your claim if it is supposed to be a science based one.

There likely were no high mountains, and there is certainly no need to try and explain all the water of the flood with what we see on earth today. It is possible that the same windows of heaven that opened up to bring the water to the planet were used in conveying some of the waters off again!



Since there likely was worldwide pushing of plates/uplift/mountain building after the time the ark landed, that is not an issue at all. I suspect that the ark may have landed not all that far away from Israel, but that with the plate movements etc...have affected how the areas are aligned today! It could have been the mount of Olives that the doves got their fresh leaf from!? Ha (Eden also was likely near there in my humble opinion)

Wafted on the fast moving continental land masses!

Nope. Rapid evolving/adapting was a feature of that former nature and I deduce that the nature change was well over a century after the flood. Piece o cake.

I heard all these pseudoscience rapid continental movements before, and rapid mountain building before, and I see no evidence in old threads, I see none now.

You are making wild claims without backing any of the claims up. The rate of motions of both continent drifts are slow, as well mountain ranges being uplifted, slow, taking milllions of years.

And as to animals moving to destined their place before the continents started splitting, is still BS, because the Australian marsupials would still have to treks tens of thousands kilometres, because they would have to move before South America/Africa (West Gondwana) split from India/Antarctica/Australia (East Gondwana) you would still litters of dead marsupials, but this would have to occur before the entire Gondwana split from Laurasia (North America/Greenland/Eurasia).

The marsupials would have to trek from Anatolia (which was joined to Eurasia, to Africa, to India, to Antarctica before reaching where Australia joined to Antarctica. As I said that would be tens of thousands of kilometres, and would have taken very slow-moving kolas to tens of thousands of generations to reach from Ararat to Australia.

You forget that kolas like to stick to eucalyptus trees, than walk on lands, because they don’t seek water from streams, rather that they chewed on leaves to get the water they needed. Kolas don’t travel far from their trees, and walking for kilometres would killed many of them, because they would die from exhaustion or be killed since they would be easy preys to many predators. And there are no trails of eucalyptus on Africa, India, Antarctica continents.

You are still making up BS. This is why no one take you seriously, because you are not only utterly ignorant, you have a penchant to lying to people, and everyone here have already spotted your lies and your openly uses of propaganda.

 

[gnostic]

Nope, but it illustrated the precursor simple organism from abiogenesis as itś starting point. Seeing the alleged progression of life kids ask where the first organism came from. The correct answer is "we don´t know.´ Most respond properly. It is illegal for a teacher to say from God, but some say things like, "ït arose naturally from the earth¨, or like responses.

My wife was business manager of our school district before we retired. The Superintendent of the district and his wife are very good friends. My wife was secretary of the school board.

I have a very good idea of what is going on.

Students in high schools still wouldn’t be taught Abiogenesis, since -

(A) Abiogenesis wouldn’t be in any biology high school-level textbooks.
(B) Abiogenesis isn’t even on university-level textbooks because students have to choose to study Abiogenesis, and most biology and biochemistry textbooks would include Abiogenesis, because of...

(C) ...Abiogenesis is a very highly specialized form of biochemistry, that are not available in every universities.
(D) Which leads to D, scientists haven’t agreed which versions or models of Abiogenesis to be correct one.​

All of these factors, only demonstrated that Abiogenesis wouldn’t be taught in high schools.

And you are evading my requests to display this chart that has Abiogenesis in the evolution chart, the one that you have claimed to be displayed by a single 5th grade high school teacher.

I can’t take your word for it about the teacher unless you show me the illustration/chart that linked Abiogenesis to evolution.