Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[YoursTrue]

They were wrong. Vegetation did not appear until long after first life. What we call plants today did not exist until long after first life. Genesis also has plants before the Sun an even huger mistake.

Do you mean by "first life" the unicell that Dr. Szotsky and others proclaim to have arisen from chemicals?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You say that God lies when the Bible speaks of the "days" of creation. Do you think it means each day was 24 hours each as we know time by the clock? The term day does not have to refer to a 24-hour time period as we know time. The word 'day' refers to a time period, not necessarily a 24-hour time period. Such as, a "day's journey," or, in your grandparents' "day." Not a 24-hour time period, but a period of time.

No, you are claiming that God lies by the interpretation that you put on Genesis. It does not matter if they were 24 hour days or eons. The order is wrong, the cause is wrong. There never were only two human beings. The evidence against that is so strong that if somehow God did make only Adam and Even then he planted mountains of false evidence saying that that did not happen. In other words for creationism to be true God has to be a liar.

There are Christians that do not take Genesis as history at all. They look at it as a series of morality tales. 2 Timothy 3 16 still applies if one treats the Bible that way. That verse does not say that the Bible is to be interpreted literally.

 

[YoursTrue]

They were wrong. Vegetation did not appear until long after first life. What we call plants today did not exist until long after first life. Genesis also has plants before the Sun an even huger mistake.

Vegetation appeared after water. You may be thinking of 24 hour days. I am not. In whatever sequence vegetation came about does not mean that vegetation came before water, does it? The Bible says after the water came vegetation. It doesn't discuss unicells.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you mean by "first life" the unicell that Dr. Szotsky and others proclaim to have arisen from chemicals?

Szostak, and they do not "proclaim" it. Their claims are supported by reliable evidence. The Bible stories, not so much:

Szostak Lab: Home

Bit the earliest of life would have hardly qualified as vegetation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Vegetation appeared after water. You may be thinking of 24 hour days. I am not. In whatever sequence vegetation came about does not mean that vegetation came before water, does it? The Bible says after the water came vegetation. It doesn't discuss unicells.

Of course it did. Long long after water. So what? You can't count the hits if you do not count the misses.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you are claiming that God lies by the interpretation that you put on Genesis. It does not matter if they were 24 hour days or eons. The order is wrong, the cause is wrong. There never were only two human beings. The evidence against that is so strong that if somehow God did make only Adam and Even then he planted mountains of false evidence saying that that did not happen. In other words for creationism to be true God has to be a liar.

There are Christians that do not take Genesis as history at all. They look at it as a series of morality tales. 2 Timothy 3 16 still applies if one treats the Bible that way. That verse does not say that the Bible is to be interpreted literally.

So you say about two human beings only not really there to procreate the rest of mankind. So maybe many of the same trees, according to your thought, emerged at the same time or around the same time, even though different types of trees. Besides, it was one human that the Bible says God made, from the earth. Eve came from Adam's rib. That you don't believe it doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. Yes, Moses knew that the earth was probably looking a like Mars before God cultivated the earth, making it ready for "life."

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you say about two human beings only not really there to procreate the rest of mankind. So maybe many of the same trees, according to your thought, emerged at the same time or around the same time, even though different types of trees. Besides, it was one human that the Bible says God made, from the earth. Eve came from Adam's rib. That you don't believe it doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. Yes, Moses knew that the earth was probably looking a like Mars before God cultivated the earth, making it ready for "life."

It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of knowledge. WE can know things using the scientific method. If there were only two people even a long long time ago the evidence for that would be obvious. The same applies for the Noah's Ark myth. The fact that you don't have to worry about waking up in a cheap hotel bathroom filled with ice and missing a kidney is evidence against the flood of Noah.

 

[YoursTrue]

Szostak, and they do not "proclaim" it. Their claims are supported by reliable evidence. The Bible stories, not so much:

Szostak Lab: Home

Bit the earliest of life would have hardly qualified as vegetation.

There we go again. I didn't say that a unicell qualifies as vegetation. And frankly, a unicell as such appears to be quite complicated, emerging as it were from nonlife. If Dr. Szostak you say doesn't proclaim his idea as to the emergence of life from non-living matter, he suggests it, doesn't he? Perhaps though, you think that a unicell worked its way into an elm tree eventually through many turns of the evolutionary process?

 

[YoursTrue]

It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of knowledge. WE can know things using the scientific method. If there were only two people even a long long time ago the evidence for that would be obvious. The same applies for the Noah's Ark myth. The fact that you don't have to worry about waking up in a cheap hotel bathroom filled with ice and missing a kidney is evidence against the flood of Noah.

Meantime some keep talking about a common ancestor genetically. And speaking of ice, scientists are a little concerned, I would say, as they warn the human populace about impending problems.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There we go again. I didn't say that a unicell qualifies as vegetation. And frankly, a unicell as such appears to be quite complicated, emerging as it were from nonlife. If Dr. Szostak you say doesn't proclaim his idea as to the emergence of life from non-living matter, he suggests it, doesn't he? Perhaps though, you think that a unicell worked its way into an elm tree eventually through many turns of the evolutionary process?

Then the Bible is wrong in its order. And of course the long distant ancestor of trees would have been unicellular just as our ancestors were unicellular.

 

[Jim]

But we know that life exited 3.8 billion years ago because we see fossil stromatolites, which are only produce by living things (bacteria).

Is that the only reason for saying that there was life 3.8 billion years ago? Are there any other reasons?

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course it did. Long long after water. So what? You can't count the hits if you do not count the misses.

Then the Bible is wrong in its order. And of course the long distant ancestor of trees would have been unicellular just as our ancestors were unicellular.

So a unicell kept changing until there were trees, fish, and humans. Is that what you believe?

 

[YoursTrue]

Is that the only reason for saying that there was life 3.8 billion years ago? Are there any other reasons?

Oh, don't ask such questions. Although they're good ones.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So a unicell kept changing until there were trees, fish, and humans. Is that what you believe?

It is what I know. You really should not insult others. Why are you not trying to learn how this is known?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is that the only reason for saying that there was life 3.8 billion years ago? Are there any other reasons?

Fossil evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, don't ask such questions. Although they're good ones.

Actually that was a good question. Wikipedia is often a good source for the basics.


Earliest known life forms - Wikipedia

 

[YoursTrue]

It is what I know. You really should not insult others. Why are you not trying to learn how this is known?

How do you know this is true? I'm sorry if you feel I have insulted you, but perhaps you could please say how you know this is true, that all life morphed, emerged, or proceeded from a unicellular item that emerged from lifeless water. Thank you. Please do not think I am insulting you, asking you to explain. Thanks again.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually that was a good question. Wikipedia is often a good source for the basics.


Earliest known life forms - Wikipedia

Thank you for the reference. It says near the beginning of the article that "Currently, Earth remains the only place in the universe known to harbor life forms." Life -- as referred to in that article by reference is:
"a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities that have biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (they have died), or because they never had such functions and are classified as inanimate. Various forms of life exist, such as plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria. The criteria can at times be ambiguous and may or may not define viruses, viroids, or potential synthetic life as "living". Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.
There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life."

 

[YoursTrue]

Fossil evidence.

How do they know that again life emerged about 3.5 billion years ago? What testing was done to verify that, please? Please do not think I am insulting you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually that was a good question. Wikipedia is often a good source for the basics.


Earliest known life forms - Wikipedia

I have no real problem with Wikipedia so far.
Again, under the subject of Life, it says that,
"Life is a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities that have biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (they have died), or because they never had such functions and are classified as inanimate. Various forms of life exist, such as plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria. The criteria can at times be ambiguous and may or may not define viruses, viroids, or potential synthetic life as "living". Biology is the science concerned with the study of life."
And then it says:
"There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life."