Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

[Subduction Zone]

The creationist MUST MUST MUST conflate abiogenesis with evolution, for it is ONLY via this dishonest conflation that they can pretend to have a justification for rejecting evolution in favor of their 100% evidence free tales.

When they do this I remind them that they are moving the goal posts and tacitly admitting that evolution is correct Since it does not rely on natural abiogenesis. Life would have evolved even if LUCA was zapped magically into existence. I offer to gladly discuss abiogenesis if they will honestly admit that evolution has more than met the legal level of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" . For some reason most back off at that point.

 

[tas8831]

Either his accusation against you is accurate, a mistake on his part for which he'll be expected to apologize, or merely a defense mechanism..

And were his accusation accurate, he could easily show it to be the case. And if this were to happen, I would be forced to eat crow and be seen as the bad guy.

Funny he has opted to just repeatedly hurl the accusation and not even try to support it.

 

[ecco]

? I am not asking if the sun exists or if good and bad spirits exist.

You certainly believe good and bad spirits exist. And probably some in between.

I think you believe the sun is that thing that revolves around the earth once every 24 hours.

 

[ecco]

You have a guess as to why someone believed something. Turn your little guessing power to try and help you defend your religion, you'll need all the help you can get.

I don't have a religion. However, if I need any more reason to take science over religion, I can just review all the silly things religious people like you believe in.

 

[shmogie]

Oh, right - so are you now going to be one of those guys that wants to declare that because in some cases abiogenesis is referred to as "chemical evolution" that it really is part of 'evolution' as such because, you know, the word 'evolution' is used?

Wrong.

 

[shmogie]

No it isn't - that is creation-talk. What NONSENSE creationists must employ to prop up their position!

As someone that actually understood the issues once said - Evolution is consistent with abiogenesis, but it is not dependent on it (Carl Sagan).

Who will support your contention - some half-wit creationist with a website?

No. Other than your hackneyed mantras and paraphrased slogans and conflation of disparate issues, do you? That is, do you have a scientific reason to do so that does not entail an a priori commitment?

Can't wait to see that "recent interview" with a 12-years dead Stanley Miller wherein he claims his original experiments were failures!

blah, blah, blah still stinging, huh ? Keep the faith.

 

[ecco]

Don't you realize that the reason that you are having so many problems answering questions is that there are no good rational answers? If there were, you would have no problems. Instead, all you do is duck and dodge, duck and dodge, duck and dodge.

Who recorded the words of Jesus as quoted in the Gospels?

You can't provide a rational answer. Period.

Not here to question trusted eyewitnesses of historical realities. We are here to see you defend your beliefs as to why you claim time exists the same in deep space. (light speed there)

Nonsense. You can't answer simple, basic questions about your religion. The only way you can defend it by throwing pebbles at the opposition, science.

I didn't ask you to "question trusted eyewitnesses of historical realities". I asked you to explain why you consider people eyewitnesses when they weren't there. I asked who wrote that God gave Moses tablets, you had no answer. I asked who recorded the events in the Garden of Eden, you had no answers.

You just blindly accept the writings of ignorant people from 4000 years ago.

Do you realize that if Marcion had prevailed, you wouldn't be trying to defend Eden, Tree, Moses, Flood? You'd be laughing at those who did.

 

[ecco]

Do you understand that writing "Prov 8" is not providing chapter and verse support addressing the questions:

• Who recorded God saying “Let there be light,”?
• Who determined that God thought the light was good?
• Who saw God separate the light from the darkness.
• Who recorded God calling the light "day"?
• Who recorded God calling the darkness "night"?

It's no wonder you can't accept the comparative complexities of science. You cannot even address simple questions about the Bible that you believe in and have allegedly studied.

More bible babble. Try to get to defending the foolish so called science beliefs you posit here, rather than trying to hide under the skirt of various other beliefs. Man up.

"bible babble"! That's funny coming from someone like you. Others in this thread have destroyed your nonsense arguments against science. As far as I'm concerned, there is no sense trying to discuss science with you. We both know that you must reject science where it conflicts with your ingrained religious beliefs. Even I have noted that all you do is dismiss all evidence out of hand.

The bottom line is that you dismiss science but cannot rationally defend your religious beliefs. That doesn't leave you with much except blind faith.

If you had anything except blind faith, you'd be posting it. You don't, so you can't.

 

[ecco]

Nor you deny that this is your bible...

Sure I deny that that is my bible.

Bi·ble
/ˈbībəl/
Learn to pronounce
noun

1. the Christian scriptures, consisting of the Old and New Testaments.
   "verses from the Bible"
   
   
   
   Gideon Bible
   • the Jewish scriptures, consisting of the Torah or Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa or Writings.
   • a copy of the Christian or Jewish scriptures.
     noun: bible; plural noun: bibles
     

I am neither a Christian nor a Jew. So I can't have a bible. That should be clear to a fourth-grader.




Old Wives Tales may be fun to read, but not as funny as someone arguing against:

Clearly whoever wrote about the conversations between God and Moses was not Moses.​

Not as funny as reading someone duck and dodge when asked who recorded Adam eating the Fruit or knowing how and why Cain killed Abel.

Not as funny as someone trying to convince others that whoever wrote about those events was an eyewitness.

That stuff is priceless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is this so hard for creationists to grasp?

I submit that it ISN'T that hard for them, but they do this because they have nothing else, and they are generally not so honest or informed on these issues.

There are several concepts that they are intelligent enough to grasp, but any creationist that has debated the topic at all knows that the or she cannot afford to. Properly learning what the scientific method is means that they cannot say that the theory of evolution is not scientific, properly learning what scientific evidence is means that creationists cannot deny that evolution is the only evidence supported concept.

Creationists have a term for those creationists that have learned and accepted the basics of science. They call them "evolutionists".

 

[shmogie]

Scared of the truth?

I don't understand this repeated, misleading mantra of yours - are you one of those people that, at least when it comes to non-bible stuff, think that we must know 100% about something before it can be mentioned?


Me and my science?

I am not an OOL researcher, I study the evolution of mammals.

Hadn't you heard? OOL is irrelevant to evolution of life.

How life began has no bearing whatsoever on the ToE. It could have even been created by the Hindu deities, it wouldn't matter to the ToE.

But the classic disingenuous tactic for the desperate is to conflate OOL and evolution, decry the dearth of solid evidence for OOL, and then try to claim that the ToE is wrong.

Classic logical fallacies are employed and revered.

So your continued insistence upon this tactic means that you must now answer for Islam and 9/11, since you are a religioniionist and all religions rely on each other.

It seems to bother you folks a lot, seeing as how you engage in these years-long campaigns of disinformation to attack evolution via whining about OOL.

Still waiting for your interview with 12-years dead Stanley Miller.
Right...
And TRUE believers in middle eastern tall tales MUST pretend to understand the science involved, even when it is clear they do not, MUST copy-paste the same, tired complaints and lies from their archives and from their fellow creationist science-rejects, MUST then whine about how mean everyone is when your deceptive and refuted tactics are exposed.

I've seen it hundreds of times. You are no different.

Apparently they think that shielding an alleged supernatural process that nobody knows anything about to a natural one for which people are at least doing research into supports their faith in ancient middle eastern tales with ZERO evidence.


Why lie?

I have posted for you on a dozen occasions links to and/or quotes/citations from OOL research. You dismiss it all by claiming to 'be familiar with it' and that is where it ends. I have exposed your oft-repeated fibs about the Miller-Urey experiments, but you just keep repeating them to make it look like you have something legitimate to claim, I guess.
I bring up the obvious when it becomes clear that you have no desire - and probably no ability - to discuss any of the actual research.

Cool projection, bro.

Can't wait until you present that "recent interview" with a 12-years dead Stanley Miller in which he declared his experiments to have been a failure.

I'm sure you will present that totally not made up interview right after you acknowledge the fact that many, many other experiments inspired by Miller's, using updated info on what the early earth's atmosphere was probably like, using different combinations of chemicals, different energy sources (to include freezing), etc. produced even more bio-organic molecules, to include asymmetrical chirality and so many other outcomes that creationist layfolk have been ordered to carry on about over the years regardless of the actual state of affairs, information that the overconfident Dunning-Kruger effect ambassadors for Jesus will dismiss by claiming to 'be familiar with it' then not writing a thing about any of it.

Bring it on. But at least acknowledge that your beliefs are built on whims and desires, while what I accept is founded on things that you clearly cannot deal with.

Your posted research, is research for sure. Does it shed any light on abiogenesis, no.

All that has been produced stands alone. There is NO pathway to life identified. Can you not grasp that ?

A few of the required ingredients for life, are just that, nothing more.

Abiogenesis isn´t what may have been produced naturally, it is a PROCESS that creates life.

You could cite a natural process that creates lungs, or livers, or brains, yet if you cannot identify the process that makes them into a living animal, you have nothing.

All of the bio chemical research has the same problem, no linkage with a process that creates life.

The net variety of what is alleged to have been produced in a possible process on the primordial earth is hopelessly short of what a living organism requires.

Again you bring up religion, why ? I haven´t.

Why do you feel religion is part of a discussion of abiogenesis ?

You believe in abiogenesis, yet for all your thrashing about, huffing and puffing, you know the bottom line is that no one knows how it could occur.

If, in your knowledge of the research, an actual pathway to life had been discovered, observed, and replicated, produce it and prove me wrong.

Otherwise, abiogenesis remains something accepted by faith. Something totally unproven. something you believe to have happened, without evidence that it did.

The stinging will go away, consider it part of a lesson you learned.

Keep the faith.

Agasin

 

[gnostic]

Blah, blah, blah. No gap for me. It only becomes a gap if you can prove abiogenesis within the framework of a comprehensive, integrated theory, you cannot.

I have already mention to you many times, that Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a scientific theory.

People (biochemists and biologists) are still actively investigating and researching in this area. There have been a number of experiments, and number of evidence, but it is still a hypothesis.

The reason why it is still active as a hypothesis, is because it is falsifiable. It has become increasingly clear you don't understand what falsifiable mean.

And since I have already tried to explain what falsifiability mean to you, repeatedly, and you fail to grasp, so I am not going to try again.

I am not going to explain something over and over again, to someone who are stubbornly ignorant, and to a person who refuse to learn from his or her mistake.

 

[ecco]

Not unclear, imprecise

If we are in a thread about carpentry tools and someone mentions a "plane" he is probably referring to something like this...

If we are in a thread about aircraft and someone mentions a "plane" he is probably referring to something like this...

You needn't be intentionally obtuse. (I'm not referring to an angle).

 

[shmogie]

I have already mention to you many times, that Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a scientific theory.

People (biochemists and biologists) are still actively investigating and researching in this area. There have been a number of experiments, and number of evidence, but it is still a hypothesis.

The reason why it is still active as a hypothesis, is because it is falsifiable. It has become increasingly clear you don't understand what falsifiable mean.

And since I have already tried to explain what falsifiability mean to you, repeatedly, and you fail to grasp, so I am not going to try again.

I am not going to explain something over and over again, to someone who are stubbornly ignorant, and to a person who refuse to learn from his or her mistake.

I used the term theory knowing exactly what it means, and it is what would be required.

The hypothesis is falsifiable, so what ? You seem to think that this somehow establishes abiogenesis in some fashion.

Evidence of what is the question.

Evidence cannot be just evidence of being evidence.

Evidence accumulates till it points to a reasonable and accurate conclusion.

There are things occurring in laboratories. Of what are they evidence ? How do you know ?

Friend, your comments about me will go unanswered, I won´t do the same to you.

 

[Jose Fly]

Blah, blah, blah. No gap for me. It only becomes a gap if you can prove abiogenesis within the framework of a comprehensive, integrated theory, you cannot.

You're not making sense. You do see the OOL as a gap in our current knowledge, don't you?

That explains a lot of what you are doing in this thread. The mysterious furball of abiogenesis is pretty important to your faith.

Please explain what faith you think I subscribe to, why abiogenesis is "pretty important" to it, and how you came to know this info.

 

[Jose Fly]

So, by using the term evolution, you exclusively mean the evolution of life.

Yes, I mean biological evolution.

No evolution of the universe, no geological evolution, no chemical evolution, all allegedly part of life.

Then why co opt the term ? Since evolution can apply to a number of things, some related to life, why not say ,the evolution of life ?

You do realize that words can have more than one meaning, right? Certainly my golf game has "evolved" over the years, but I'm pretty sure if I tried to say something like "evolution has been proven by my golf game", it would generate a lot of confusion. OTOH if I said "evolution has been proven by this emergence of this new species" there would be a lot less confusion.

You will respond by saying something along the lines of ¨everybody knows what I mean¨. That is irrelevant and sloppy.

Do you know what the word "connotation" refers to?

If the word evolution stands by itself, then it includes abiogenesis, precision of language precludes subsequent responses you don´t like.

I'm rather surprised to see that apparently, you are not aware that words can have multiple meanings.

 

[shmogie]

Yes, I mean biological evolution.


You do realize that words can have more than one meaning, right? Certainly my golf game has "evolved" over the years, but I'm pretty sure if I tried to say something like "evolution has been proven by my golf game", it would generate a lot of confusion. OTOH if I said "evolution has been proven by this emergence of this new species" there would be a lot less confusion.


Do you know what the word "connotation" refers to?


I'm rather surprised to see that apparently, you are not aware that words can have multiple meanings.

Of course they can have multiple meanings, which is my entire point !

 

[shmogie]

You're not making sense. You do see the OOL as a gap in our current knowledge, don't you?


Please explain what faith you think I subscribe to, why abiogenesis is "pretty important" to it, and how you came to know this info.

You forget, I don´t answer your questions anymore, since you refused to answer mine.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why is this so hard for creationists to grasp?

I submit that it ISN'T that hard for them, but they do this because they have nothing else, and they are generally not so honest or informed on these issues.

Well, I started a thread on this a while ago, but I'l repeat anyways.....it is somewhat satisfying to see how creationists have largely retreated to focusing mostly on the origin of life and the universe. I see that as progress.

 

[Jose Fly]

And were his accusation accurate, he could easily show it to be the case. And if this were to happen, I would be forced to eat crow and be seen as the bad guy.

Funny he has opted to just repeatedly hurl the accusation and not even try to support it.

And the thing is, I see this all the time from creationists. Whether it's one of our Jehovah's Witnesses leveling an accusation of fraud against the entire scientific community, a JW claiming geologists are conspiring to repress evidence of the Biblical flood, a creationist accusing authors of a paper of unethical behavior, or one of our creationists accusing you of dishonesty, not one of them ever bothered to even try to substantiate their accusations.

And then they have the nerve to go into other threads and lecture people about morality.