Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

tas8831 · Sep 21, 2019

shmogie said:
In a scientific discussion of abiogenesis. Of course I have within the context of theology discussions.

Right because the two are totally unrelated...
Shall I do another search?

Nah - you will just get all snowflakey.

So, are you ever going to produce this mystery interview with a dead Stanley Miller, or shall we chalk that up to desperate and malicious embellishment?

And are you going to stop conflating abiogenesis and evolution, or shall we conflate Christianity with Islam and demand you answer for 9/11?

And it is a funny thing - one can tell a lot about the strength of a creationist's position when they start cherry-picking parts of posts to reply to while ignoring the rest...

tas8831 · Sep 21, 2019

shmogie said:
I didn´t declare anything, I made a point, in response to another bringing up supernatural forces.

Black/white talking points ? Not hardly. Since you are inferring that there is a vast amount of gray, what is it?

We aren´t talking about observable natural forces, are we ? We are talking about an unobserved, unknown, idea, that you believe occurred.

There are a plethora of supernatural based ideas about creation, select any one you choose.

Hmmm.... Seems pretty obvious why you don't want to discuss creation. You (and here, you means not just YOU, but creationists in general) know there is nothing to it but an unquestioning belief in a collection of middle eastern tall tales. You know you will never have anything approaching even the surface-scraping research on OOL in support of your deity magic creation beliefs. And that scares you. So you attack attack attack and conflate conflate conflate and dismiss dismiss dismiss and ignore ignore ignore.
All the while knowing that you can always weasel out of having to defend the lack of evidence for your magic tales by claiming martyrdom and the like.

tas8831 · Sep 21, 2019

Jose Fly said:
So when have any of the non-natural forces you believe were responsible for the OOL been observed and measured?

I would settle for 'inferred from convincing and corroborated circumstantial evidence'.

Many, probably most scientists (including many posting on this forum) consider the supernatural to be off limits for scientific investigation.

I am not among them.

I recognize that one cannot observe or directly measure the non-natural actions of deities. However, I DO think that if these deities exist or existed, and performed the actions they are reported to have done - acts that produced physical manifestations (e.g., Noah flood; creation, etc.) - then there should be evidence to show this. And given the extent of these actions, there SHOULD be a lot of evidence, and thus we should have been able to discover something tangible by now.

And I do not mean mathematical trickery, claimed psychological experiences, phony answered prayers, etc. I mean actual, physical evidence.

And I do not mean fallacy-based claims that 'abiogenesis hasn't been proven', or attacks on Darwin - as these are only evidence of the lack of real pro-creation evidence, and of course, the lack of integrity and class of creationists.

shmogie · Sep 21, 2019

tas8831 said:
Right because the two are totally unrelated...
Shall I do another search?

Nah - you will just get all snowflakey.

So, are you ever going to produce this mystery interview with a dead Stanley Miller, or shall we chalk that up to desperate and malicious embellishment?

And are you going to stop conflating abiogenesis and evolution, or shall we conflate Christianity with Islam and demand you answer for 9/11?

And it is a funny thing - one can tell a lot about the strength of a creationist's position when they start cherry-picking parts of posts to reply to while ignoring the rest...

Whether you like it or not, abiogenesis is part of evolution. Ever heard the term chemical evolution ? That is what allegedly occurred with life as the result.

The precursor organism had to exist for evolution to occur, therefore abiogenesis and evolution are firmly linked together. You cannot have the latter without the former.

The attempt at separating them is made because since abiogenesis is a mystery, the linkage makes them both questionable.

ecco · Sep 21, 2019

dad said:
Only assuming what we see here represents there too. Since it is only tested/observed here, well, maybe we should be careful about sweeping statements.

He is right! We have no way of really knowing how things are "way out there" beyond Dad's Universe.

ecco · Sep 21, 2019

ecco said:
What do you mean "with His Own hand"? Do you mean he carved them into stone and then handed them to someone?

dad said:
Yes.

To whom, may I ask?

ecco · Sep 21, 2019

ecco said:
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"?

dad said:
Jesus is God, and He confirmed it was true as ever true could be.
We also have His words often in red letters in the NT.

Once again you ducked and dodged - big time.
Show where Jesus confirmed:

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"?

Please be sure to cite chapter and verse.

ecco · Sep 21, 2019

dad said:
Jesus is God, and He confirmed it was true as ever true could be.
We also have His words often in red letters in the NT.

Ah - RED LETTERS

Do you suppose God/Jesus goes through copies of the NT changing what Jesus allegedly said to Red Letters? Isn't is more rational to believe that some old scribes or the folks at the printing company did that?

Also, you have yet to explain who recorded all these words spoken by Jesus.

ecco · Sep 21, 2019

ecco said:
What do you mean by "inspired"?
Joseph Smith was inspired, he made up stories.
L. Ron Hubbard was inspired, he made up stories.

dad said:
Spirits can be bad. His inspiration is very very good.

Another baseless comment without a shred of evidence to support it.

ecco said:
Do you believe the things that Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard wrote?

dad said:
I believe they wrote it. However, I do not see that their stuff matches up with His word.

That doesn't answer the question: Do you believe the things that Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard wrote?

shmogie · Sep 21, 2019

tas8831 said:
Hmmm.... Seems pretty obvious why you don't want to discuss creation. You (and here, you means not just YOU, but creationists in general) know there is nothing to it but an unquestioning belief in a collection of middle eastern tall tales. You know you will never have anything approaching even the surface-scraping research on OOL in support of your deity magic creation beliefs. And that scares you. So you attack attack attack and conflate conflate conflate and dismiss dismiss dismiss and ignore ignore ignore.
All the while knowing that you can always weasel out of having to defend the lack of evidence for your magic tales by claiming martyrdom and the like.

No, I don´t want to discuss creation, you are right. It is a theological position, not a scientific one.

On the other hand, abiogenesis, that magical mystery process is alleged to be scientific, yet there is no science to explain it.

That puts you and your science in the spotlight.

There is no science accepted evidence for creation, I have said that from the start. Why do you think that bothers me ?

Abiogenesis is the subject, and like all discussion on the idea, evolutionists and true believers MUST drag in creationism, they are unable to do otherwise.

Apparently they think that comparing an alleged natural process to a supernatural one supports their faith in abiogenesis.

They can never stay on topic, they do everything possible to change the subject.

I won´t allow it. I make every effort to keep the conversation on topic. You are just like the others, it won"t do ol"boy, it won't do. Nice try though.

shmogie · Sep 21, 2019

shmogie said:
No, I don´t want to discuss creation, you are right. It is a theological position, not a scientific one.

On the other hand, abiogenesis, that magical mystery process is alleged to be scientific, yet there is no science to explain it.

That puts you and your science in the spotlight.

There is no science accepted evidence for creation, I have said that from the start. Why do you think that bothers me ?

Abiogenesis is the subject, and like all discussion on the idea, evolutionists and true believers MUST drag in creationism, they are unable to do otherwise.

Apparently they think that comparing an alleged natural process to a supernatural one supports their faith in abiogenesis.

They can never stay on topic, they do everything possible to change the subject.

I won´t allow it. I make every effort to keep the conversation on topic. You are just like the others, it won"t do ol"boy, it won't do. Nice try though.

ratiocinator · Sep 21, 2019

shmogie said:
Whether you like it or not, abiogenesis is part of evolution. Ever heard the term chemical evolution ? That is what allegedly occurred with life as the result.

The precursor organism had to exist for evolution to occur, therefore abiogenesis and evolution are firmly linked together. You cannot have the latter without the former.

The attempt at separating them is made because since abiogenesis is a mystery, the linkage makes them both questionable.

This is total nonsense. No matter how the first first life appeared, evolution stands as the explanation of what happened afterwards and how life became diverse and complex. There is copious evidence that evolution did happen - the mystery about abiogenesis has no impact at all on that evidence.

It is both logically and scientifically nonsensical to claim that evolution is questionable because we don't have a tested theory of abiogenesis.

ecco · Sep 21, 2019

dad said:
Forget that video, I thought it was supposed to be defending the actual tower of Babel. You have pointed out that it was not the actual tower.
...
I must admit I never even watched it, just googled stuff supporting the historicity of Babel. But your research of it seems to show it is off target.

Wow!

You never even watched it! You just google and post stuff that you think supports your position.

Is that hypocritical?
Is that intellectually lazy?
Is that deceitful?

All of the above?

For what it's worth, you are not the only person who has been caught doing this. And, it's not only Creationists. People:

Make baseless arguments
Find a headline on Google that seems to support their argument
Post the article/video
Hope no one actually reads (views) it

I guess that's the best you can do when ya got nuttin'.

ETA: I'd give you credit for admitting it, except that you were forced into it.

ecco · Sep 21, 2019

wellwisher said:
The analogy in modern times is what is called revisionist's history. This is where people of the present, assume the people of the past, had the same insight as them, and thereby should have known better. This allow us to judge them by modern standards.

You present a nonsensical analogy and don't even understand the term "revisionist's history". You should let Google help you avoid embarrassment in the future.

wellwisher said:
It is like the Progressives hating the statues of Confederate leaders of the past, as though these people could look into the future, and should have know how things would turn out 100 years later.

One should not have to be a progressive to realize that celebrating statues of the leaders and supporters of slavery is not acceptable in a civilized society.

One should not have to be a progressive to realize that celebrating statues of losers is nonsensical.

I realize this is a derail - sorry.

shmogie · Sep 21, 2019

ratiocinator said:
This is total nonsense. No matter how the first first life appeared, evolution stands as the explanation of what happened afterwards and how life became diverse and complex. There is copious evidence that evolution did happen - the mystery about abiogenesis has no impact at all on that evidence.

It is both logically and scientifically nonsensical to claim that evolution is questionable because we don't have a tested theory of abiogenesis.

Did I say evolution is questionable ? No. It is logical to say that abiogenesis is part of the process of evolution in that without it evolution could not occur.

Do you deny chemical evolution ?

Jose Fly · Sep 21, 2019

shmogie said:
Everyone knows I am a creationist, and yes I am proud of it.

Then you shouldn't be surprised or upset when folks take that into account when discussing science with you.

Since you have refused to answer my questions, you get the same in return.

I'll say it again....what questions? Post them and I'll do my very best to answer them.

Character assassination in this case is obvious. Quotations out of context snipped to reflect the snippers purpose is unethical, you know what ethical means, right ?

If you're going to accuse @tas8831 of unethical behavior, I would hope you feel at least some moral obligation to back it up. Merely asserting such a thing is in itself, unethical.

Jose Fly · Sep 21, 2019

tas8831 said:
Indeed. He has taken to using my exposure of his.. errors.. as setting the groundwork for either reporting me (for something) or ignoring me. I am so mean (for reminding him of the things he has written) ....

The last refuge of the defeated....

Jose Fly · Sep 21, 2019

tas8831 said:
I would settle for 'inferred from convincing and corroborated circumstantial evidence'.

Many, probably most scientists (including many posting on this forum) consider the supernatural to be off limits for scientific investigation.

I am not among them.

I recognize that one cannot observe or directly measure the non-natural actions of deities. However, I DO think that if these deities exist or existed, and performed the actions they are reported to have done - acts that produced physical manifestations (e.g., Noah flood; creation, etc.) - then there should be evidence to show this. And given the extent of these actions, there SHOULD be a lot of evidence, and thus we should have been able to discover something tangible by now.

And I do not mean mathematical trickery, claimed psychological experiences, phony answered prayers, etc. I mean actual, physical evidence.

And I do not mean fallacy-based claims that 'abiogenesis hasn't been proven', or attacks on Darwin - as these are only evidence of the lack of real pro-creation evidence, and of course, the lack of integrity and class of creationists.

Oh certainly. If creationism's version of history (recent/separate creation of humans, global flood, "kinds") were true, the only way it wouldn't be very obvious is if God covered his tracks by manipulating everything to look different. But that's in the same category as last thursdayism, which gets to solipsism, which IMO isn't even worth discussing.

I suppose that's why every single time we try and start a thread to get the creationists to make a positive case for creationism, they avoid it like the plague.

ratiocinator · Sep 21, 2019

shmogie said:
Did I say evolution is questionable ?

Yes:-

shmogie said:
The attempt at separating them is made because since abiogenesis is a mystery, the linkage makes them both questionable.

shmogie said:
No. It is logical to say that abiogenesis is part of the process of evolution in that without it evolution could not occur.

It isn't part of it, it's a necessary condition for it. It's a necessary condition for biology as a whole, and medicine, and history, and any number of other subjects that couldn't exist without life.

Evolution, and the evidence that supports it, stand alone. It doesn't go away no matter how life started off. Even if we suppose that the first life was magicked into existence by pan-dimensional elves or some god or other, evolution would still be supported by comprehensive evidence.

Jose Fly · Sep 21, 2019

shmogie said:
Whether you like it or not, abiogenesis is part of evolution. Ever heard the term chemical evolution ? That is what allegedly occurred with life as the result.

The precursor organism had to exist for evolution to occur, therefore abiogenesis and evolution are firmly linked together. You cannot have the latter without the former.

The attempt at separating them is made because since abiogenesis is a mystery, the linkage makes them both questionable.

Whether the first self-replicators came to be on earth via chemistry, a rock from space, alien seeding, an inter-dimensional rift, or poofed by a god, evolutionary theory would still explain the subsequent history of life on earth.

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Fisker of men

Fisker of men

Fisker of men

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

Fisker of men