Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

[gnostic]

If I don`t have the bloody chart, how can I give the it to you?.

I will give you the names and page numbers and you can look up the bloody references to abiogeneisis on your own.

shmogie, have you ever study at university or at college, where lecturers and tutors, or what the US education called them?

When you are writing some essays and reports for projects (and I am just talking about just Abiogenesis or Evolution - I am talking about any work you made do for the subjects), they say you need to supply lists of works, be they be books, journals, essays, webpage links, etc, in the bibliography section of your own reports.

These are the sources you would use in your research for your project. They would indicate the efforts and resources you have put in your research, as well to ensure students are not merely plagiarizing other people’s works.

You were the one who made claim about the chart from a 5th grade high school teacher, which I have no way to verify it had to do with Abiogenesis or not, not unless you can supply a copy of that illustration.

If you are going to make such claims, then you needs to back them up.

And it is the same with your claim about 3 commonly used biology textbooks in the US, supposedly have chapters on Abiogenesis. So unless you supplies the book authors and titles, and chapter or page numbers, I only have your words. But you cannot even do that.

What you have supplied is quote from report from Gordon Mills concerning some books with no titles and no authors, and Jose Fly is right in pointing out to you that you are quoting from secondary source:

So you've not actually seen the textbooks yourself, but rather are relying on a secondary source to tell you what's in them. Curious....what books did you get this info from?

It would have been a lot easier if you have just given a list these sources but instead, you are giving us a run-around. You are being evasive.

Why do you do that?

Look, shmogie. If you don’t want come off being a creationist like dad, then stop making claims without being able to back them up.

dad has this twisted habits of making one unsubstantiated claim, then make up more even more absurd claims on top of the previous ones, as if that help him solve his problem. It doesn’t. It just make him sound ignorant and lying.

 

[gnostic]

Science...actual science...knows that there was a separating of continents. The only issue is when and how long it took. Your pseudo science uses beliefs to concoct ages. I have no need to be so dishonest.

LOL

You wouldn’t know “actual science” is, even if it hit you right on your nose. And you have been dishonest...frequently.

You don’t understand the concept of scientific evidence, and worse of all you have often ignored them when evidences have been presented to you.

Evidence not only just verify solid valid hypotheses or theories; evidence will also refute poorly explained hypotheses or obsolete theories.

And the more evidence you have that back up the theories or hypotheses, then the MORE LIKELY or PROBABLE they are to be TRUE.

BUT, if you have more evidence AGAINST the hypotheses or theories, then the LESS LIKELY or IMPROBABLE they are (hence FALSE).

Did you notice that I used words, MORE LIKELY, LESS LIKELY, PROBABLE, IMPROBABLE?

I used these terms because that how actual science works, which have more to do with the QUANTITIES OF EVIDENCE, because it used PROBABILITY.

You did learn statistics and probability in high school, in college or university, didn’t you?

The evidence - FOR or AGAINST - the explanation and predictions, is what determine the quality of any good, solid theory, as well as weeding out poor or outdated theory.

The evidence is what provide useful and applicable data to any scientific natural or physical science. These data comes in forms of observations, quantities, measurements, and comparisons and testing of data.

For instance, if I was to do a simple gravity experiment of falling objects, from 10-storey balcony. I can measure and record the masses of each objects, I can measure and record the height of the balcony to the ground below, I can time how long it take from releasing the object to the time it hit the ground, I can also detect, measure and record the speed of the falling objects with speed radar (like what they used in tennis to measure a player’s serve or the speed camera), and I can record everything on video. And you may repeated the experiments several times for each object, to ensure that errors are minimized.

All of these are evidence and will form the basis of the data collected in this experiment. And with these data and the quantities of experiments being performed and repeated, you can analyze the evidence/test results and reach the conclusion in your experiment, such as if it was successful or unsuccessful, and does these evidence and data support the theory?

That what empirical evidence are use for, to test and verify if a theory is true, or refute if a theory is false. And that’s the only way to determine objectively if it is science or not, or it is fact or fiction.

And one of the purposes of testings and using statistics/probabilities on accumulated evidence and data, it enabled scientists to make useful predictions, of either the past, present or future.

How does any of that, relate to the continental drifts?

That’s a rhetorical question, because I know that you don’t know why I brought up evidence and probabilities.

Do you remember what I said about data?

Well, you can measure the distance travelled by a continent, eg Australia, for each year. Let’s say hypothetically you have measure the distance travel, each year, from 1901 to year 2000, then you should get 100 measurements of Australia moving northward at consistent rate of 6 or 7 cm each year.

By measuring this 100 times for 100 years, you can essentially predict how far a plate has travel by the consistently known rates.

With these measurements, you can predict and determine how far Australia has traveled in 1000 years, then Australia would have moved between 60 m and 70 m. And if you were to calculate how much distance Australia plate has traveled in 4500 years ago, you will get figures like 270 m and 315 m. That’s metres, not kilometres.

So in order for the Australian plate to move just 1 km, it could be anywhere between 14,285.7 and 16,666.7 years.

I bring up 4500 years, because that supposedly be the time of Genesis Flood.

Now, unless you have better data, with evidence as to the speed of plate tectonic movements, that you think all the continents split after the Flood, then your thinking is both ignorant and deluded.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did @shmogie 's homework again. It is a slow day. I could not access the whole article, but it appears to be a critique by creationists that really had no clue. At the bottom of the page they mention the atmospheres for the Miller-Urey experiment. Yes, the original atmosphere was probably wrong, but the experiment was rerun with several different atmospheres and they all made amino acids. Not only that, but meteorites are a source of them too. The lead writer is a medical doctor. He is clearly not an authority on this topic and even in 1992 his knowledge was decades out of date from what could be seen:


Origin of Life & Evolution in Biology Textbooks: A Critique

 

[Subduction Zone]

shmogie, have you ever study at university or at college, where lecturers and tutors, or what the US education called them?

When you are writing some essays and reports for projects (and I am just talking about just Abiogenesis or Evolution - I am talking about any work you made do for the subjects), they say you need to supply lists of works, be they be books, journals, essays, webpage links, etc, in the bibliography section of your own reports.

These are the sources you would use in your research for your project. They would indicate the efforts and resources you have put in your research, as well to ensure students are not merely plagiarizing other people’s works.

You were the one who made claim about the chart from a 5th grade high school teacher, which I have no way to verify it had to do with Abiogenesis or not, not unless you can supply a copy of that illustration.

If you are going to make such claims, then you to back it up.

And it is the same with your claim about 3 commonly used biology textbooks in the US, supposedly have chapters on Abiogenesis. So unless you supplies the book authors and titles, and chapter or page numbers, I only have your words. But you cannot even do that.

What you have supplied is quote from report from Gordon Mills concerning some books with no titles and no authors, and Jose Fly is right in pointing out to you that you are quoting from secondary source:



It would have been a lot easier if you have just given a list these sources but instead, you are giving us a run-around. You are being evasive.

Why do you do that?

Look, shmogie. If you don’t want come off being a creationist like dad, then stop making claims without being able to back them up.

dad has this twisted habits of making one unsubstantiated claim, then make up more even more absurd claims on top of the previous ones, as if that help him solve his problem. It doesn’t. It just make him sound ignorant and lying.

Reading what I could about the article, only the first page is accessible, the lead author is a medical doctor and not a biologist, I could not find anything on the second author. It is probably safe to assume not a biologist. The third author is an engineer. So we have three people that are obviously all not authorities and the first and third being creationists or in other words science deniers. I don't think anyone can take that criticism too seriously.

Their complaint was that authors had shown too much confidence that a scientific problem would be solved. Right now it looks like that confidence is well deserved.

 

[gnostic]

Abiogenesis is ongoing hypothesis, where active researches have been done.

Currently, while Abiogenesis is a falsifiable hypothesis, it is yet to be conclusive as to which model is the one that started life on Earth.

It isn’t a fairytale or faith-based religion, as shmogie would have it.

Everything, and I referring to matters on Earth, contained multitudes of molecules of atoms, whether it organic, inorganic or man-made.

My point here, is that people who researching Abiogenesis are seeking out natural and physical explanations/solutions, not a supernatural one.

We may never get the answer we seek, but that doesn’t and should stop people with inquiring.

Saying it is a religion, is just plain stupid as well as inaccurate, because part of religion is not just about “believing” and “faith; it is also about “worshipping”. Religion involved worshipping a divine or supreme being or beings.

There are no worshipping involved with science, and no divine or spiritual beings.

Creationists tends to forget, that natural science is about explaining natural and physical phenomena and testing them. There are no WHO in the explanation, and no worshipping of that WHO.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abiogenesis is ongoing hypothesis, where active researches have been done.

Currently, while Abiogenesis is a falsifiable hypothesis, it is yet yet conclusive as to which model is the one that started life on Earth.

It isn’t a fairytale or faith-based religion, as shmogie would have it.

Everything, and I referring to matters on Earth, contained multitudes of molecules of atoms, whether it organic, inorganic or man-made.

My point here, is that people who researching Abiogenesis are seeking out natural and physical explanations/solutions, not a supernatural one.

We may never get the answer we seek, but that doesn’t and should stop people with inquiring.

Saying it is a religion, is just plain stupid as well as inaccurate, because part of religion is not just about “believing” and “faith; it is also about “worshipping”. Religion involved worshipping a divine or supreme being or beings.

There are no worshipping involved with science, and no divine or spiritual beings.

Creationists tends to forget, that natural science is about explaining natural and physical phenomena and testing them. There are no WHO in the explanation, and no worshipping of that WHO.

One of the reasons that abiogenesis may never be solved is that there may be more than one pathway to life. The exact path may never be solved. But as to the question whether abiogenesis is possible or not the answer appears to be yes, more and more as more and more questions are answered..

 

[gnostic]

One of the reasons that abiogenesis may never be solved is that there may be more than one pathway to life.

That is definitely one possibility.

I wrote in the past, I don’t if it was here or some other threads, that life could have started with amino acids developing into proteins, both from Earth itself, and from meteorites or comets that crashed onto very young Earth.

 

[shmogie]

shmogie, have you ever study at university or at college, where lecturers and tutors, or what the US education called them?

When you are writing some essays and reports for projects (and I am just talking about just Abiogenesis or Evolution - I am talking about any work you made do for the subjects), they say you need to supply lists of works, be they be books, journals, essays, webpage links, etc, in the bibliography section of your own reports.

These are the sources you would use in your research for your project. They would indicate the efforts and resources you have put in your research, as well to ensure students are not merely plagiarizing other people’s works.

You were the one who made claim about the chart from a 5th grade high school teacher, which I have no way to verify it had to do with Abiogenesis or not, not unless you can supply a copy of that illustration.

If you are going to make such claims, then you needs to back them up.

And it is the same with your claim about 3 commonly used biology textbooks in the US, supposedly have chapters on Abiogenesis. So unless you supplies the book authors and titles, and chapter or page numbers, I only have your words. But you cannot even do that.

What you have supplied is quote from report from Gordon Mills concerning some books with no titles and no authors, and Jose Fly is right in pointing out to you that you are quoting from secondary source:



It would have been a lot easier if you have just given a list these sources but instead, you are giving us a run-around. You are being evasive.

Why do you do that?

Look, shmogie. If you don’t want come off being a creationist like dad, then stop making claims without being able to back them up.

dad has this twisted habits of making one unsubstantiated claim, then make up more even more absurd claims on top of the previous ones, as if that help him solve his problem. It doesn’t. It just make him sound ignorant and lying.

You are confused. I backed every claim up. Here is the name of the chart you are so worried about.

It is called the tree of life. You can find it on line.

I gave you the name of the the books and asked if you wanted the page numbers, I get static back.

Do you want them, or not ?

I told the spanish fly where to find the entire review from the periodical, the American Biology Teacher.

As I said, you are confused and not following what is written.

So, don´t make irrelevant accusations.

I know nothing about your father, and he being a liar

 

[dad]

LOL

You wouldn’t know “actual science” is, even if it hit you right on your nose. And you have been dishonest...frequently.

You don’t understand the concept of scientific evidence, and worse of all you have often ignored them when evidences have been presented to you.

I accept all evidence, all that I dismiss is beliefs that have no basis. You cannot get away with calling baseless beliefs evidence. Get over it.

Evidence not only just verify solid valid hypotheses or theories; evidence will also refute poorly explained hypotheses or obsolete theories.

And the more evidence you have that back up the theories or hypotheses, then the MORE LIKELY or PROBABLE they are to be TRUE.

Great so go find some for your evo fables that have no evidence. Belief is not evidence.

BUT, if you have more evidence AGAINST the hypotheses or theories, then the LESS LIKELY or IMPROBABLE they are (hence FALSE).

Did you notice that I used words, MORE LIKELY, LESS LIKELY, PROBABLE, IMPROBABLE?

You thought your religion got to decide what is likely????!! Hilarious. You declare stuff probable based on how it fits your beliefs.

You did learn statistics and probability in high school, in college or university, didn’t you?

None of that helps your stories.

The evidence - FOR or AGAINST - the explanation and predictions, is what determine the quality of any good, solid theory, as well as weeding out poor or outdated theory.

And there is no evidence either for your origin beliefs, or against the the truth of Scripture. In all ways you fail.

The evidence is what provide useful and applicable data to any scientific natural or physical science. These data comes in forms of observations, quantities, measurements, and comparisons and testing of data.

Thanks for admitting that. Now go get some.

For instance, if I was to do a simple gravity experiment of falling objects, from 10-storey balcony. I can measure and record the masses of each objects, I can measure and record the height of the balcony to the ground below, I can time how long it take from releasing the object to the time it hit the ground, I can also detect, measure and record the speed of the falling objects with speed radar (like what they used in tennis to measure a player’s serve or the speed camera), and I can record everything on video. And you may repeated the experiments several times for each object, to ensure that errors are minimized.

The old trick of trying to compare origin science religious beliefs to actual knowledge of fact grows wearisome.

That what empirical evidence are use for, to test and verify if a theory is true, or refute if a theory is false. And that’s the only way to determine objectively if it is science or not, or it is fact or fiction.

And so, your evidence is..? Drum rolls alone don't cut it.

And one of the purposes of testings and using statistics/probabilities on accumulated evidence and data, it enabled scientists to make useful predictions, of either the past, present or future.

They can't predict the future and can't even predict earthquakes now, but in any case, that has nothing to do with origin stories and lies of so called science.

How does any of that, relate to the continental drifts?

The relation is that you apply your belief in a same nature in the past to this also, of course. Hey, I can do that too. It's easy.

Well, you can measure the distance travelled by a continent, eg Australia, for each year. Let’s say hypothetically you have measure the distance travel, each year, from 1901 to year 2000, then you should get 100 measurements of Australia moving northward at consistent rate of 6 or 7 cm each year.

Yes we can use present nature rates for times for which this nature existed. This is news??

By measuring this 100 times for 100 years, you can essentially predict how far a plate has travel by the consistently known rates.

Normally, sure. However, one day soon the bible predicts all mountains will be made low and all islands will move away from their current places etc. So your little predictive models will be flushed.

With these measurements, you can predict and determine how far Australia has traveled in 1000 years, then Australia would have moved between 60 m and 70 m. And if you were to calculate how much distance Australia plate has traveled in 4500 years ago, you will get figures like 270 m and 315 m. That’s metres, not kilometres.

No way. All you are doing is using the present nature realities and movements of plates in known times, and trying to apply that to the unknown past as if nature was the same then also. Prove it first or you cannot do it.

So in order for the Australian plate to move just 1 km, it could be anywhere between 14,285.7 and 16,666.7 years.

In this nature, yes. No connection to the far past movement rates.

 

[gnostic]

I want to add, SZ, that science, whatever branches and fields, often have more than one answer.

To give an example, Evolution started off with Darwin and Wallace in the mid- to late 19th century, with Natural Selection. NS was the only mechanism at that time.

In the 20th century, biologists have come up with another 4 evolutionary mechanisms, ie Mutations, Genetic Drift, Gene Flow and Genetic Hitchhiking.

It is the same with gravity. People assumed that Newton’s theory on gravity was the only answer we needed, but then Einstein brought in Relativity, and that gave us better understanding of distant stars and galaxies.

And then with chemistry, we thought atoms were smallest particles, then we discover the existence of nuclei, neutrons, protons and electrons. Not too long after that, people in the physics department discovered protons and neutrons are not elementary particles, and discovered quarks, leptons, photons bosons. And quantum mechanics started off a new wave, or more precisely “new waves”, that opened up how should look at the world.

Then there is electricity and electromagnetism. And so on, and on, and on...

It would seem that every time we learn something, we discovered that there are even more mysteries in the natural world that require unlocking, and more we could learn.

Abiogenesis may or may not be the answer, but if there is, then like other fields in science, there may be more than one solution/explanation.

 

[shmogie]

There's nothing to refute. You've made a series of assertions and haven't substantiated any of them. That speaks for itself.


So you have no quotes from any actual textbook. Therefore your claim remains unsubstantiated.


Again, you made the claim, therefore it falls on you to support it. If you cannot, there's nothing left to discuss.


So you've not actually seen the textbooks yourself, but rather are relying on a secondary source to tell you what's in them. Curious....what books did you get this info from?


Pretty typical creationist behavior....make an assertion, dodge all attempts to get you to substantiate it, and finish by restating the assertion.

It fascinates me how frequently creationists do this, yet never seem to understand or appreciate how ridiculous it is.

I am beginning to think you are ridiculous. You ask for a quotation, I give it to you, you ask for a link, I don´t have it but tell you exactly how to find it, and the entire article. Not enough for you.

I make an assertion, and tell you from what books, and even give you the pages where the evidence is found, I am being deceptive.

Typical evolutionist behavior, unfounded accusations.

If I was in fact dodging, I picked a heck of a way to go about it. I will have given anyone but one moribund by laziness every opportunity to prove it.

You haven´t. You can´t.

It fascinates me how frequently evolutionists and terminal lazy people do this. Hyper lazy evolutionists are the worst.

The bogus narrative must be maintained, creationists dodge the issues, so, of course no matter what a creationist does, it has to be inadequate, to maintain the narrative.

As I said, you have one goal, and it is not learning the facts, but rather is attempting to discredit.

You have the true faith, to question it in any way is anathema, and must be put put down.

You failed

 

[gnostic]

I gave you the name of the the books and asked if you wanted the page numbers, I get static back.

Do you want them, or not ?

Good grief.

I did ask you to cite your sources, shmogie, didn’t I?

I did so several replies ago, post #546, after you mention 3 biology textbooks in #544.

In another post I cited the three most commonly used biology textbooks in the US, they each discuss abiogenesis.

But since you brought these textbooks up, please do cite these sources.

Must I ask for your sources repeatedly?

I have to through hurdles, and you either miss my first request, ignore my request or you are evading.

But the answer is “yes”. Cite your sources, please.

 

[shmogie]

Language, language.

I went to the trouble of looking on Amazon for the books that you cited. Unfortunately, none of them allowed me to look inside the books, even to find whether abiogenesis is mentioned in the indexes, so I can't find out whether any of them mention the topic or what they say about it. Other people may be more fortunate. For the rest, I advise you to keep your temper and to avoid bad language.

LOL ! Saying bloody isn´t bad language for an American, it means, uh, bloody.. Why it is bad language to you guys, I have no idea. I was mocking the Brit who I was responding to who used it first.


Perhaps you can find reviews of them.

If you do come across an index, origin of life is used more often than abiogenesis.

 

[gnostic]

You are confused. I backed every claim up. Here is the name of the chart you are so worried about.

It is called the tree of life. You can find it on line.

I have seen such chart and similar ones before. And there are numbers of them.

The Tree of Life have more to do with Evolution’s common ancestry and to illustrate biodiversity of life, not Abiogenesis - it is not about the origin of life.

Try again.

 

[ecco]

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

Duck and dodge and evade.

As far as evidence for no flood, I could post every article that has been written about geology in the past 50 years. All either ignore The Flood as too silly to even mention or firmly dispute it. Here is just one which you won't bother to read because you don't believe in science anyway. Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth

Actually, your call to me to post evidence is hypocritical because we all know you will ignore it like you have ignored all scientific evidence that anyone has ever posted.


But, you know how this works, you make a ridiculous claim that the entire earth was covered in water sometime in the past 6000 years. It is your responsibility to provide evidence.

 

[ecco]

Not sure why you post here since you have failed to prop up your evo religion.

You all have been trying to equate science to your superstitious religious beliefs for so long, you are actually starting to believe it. It's just more evidence for your fondness for nonsense.

 

[ecco]

You don't think thousands of non bible believing clergy could be wrong. Fine...you have an opinion.

I don't think thousands of Bible-believing clergy are wrong. I think you and other fundamentalist literalists are wrong.

Now either make a bible case or a science case and quit the groaning.

If there is a case to be made for a literal interpretation of Genesis, then you are the one who should be making it. But you don't. Why is that? Is it because there isn't a shred of evidence to support Genesis?

Oh no! He's going to cut and paste from AIG.

 

[ecco]

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'm not sure if you are referring to me, but, I'll assert that abiogenesis occurred.

In the beginning, either the scientific beginning of the earth 4.5 BYA or the Bible beginning of "the first day", there was no life. Today there is life. So, obviously and unquestionably, an abiogenesis process occurred.

You believe aGodDidIt.

I believe that it occurred naturally in a process now sometimes referred to as chemical evolution. Currently, the exact process of that chemical evolution is no known.

So, what to believe? Nature or aGodDidIt? Well, let's look at history. Man has attributed lightning, volcanoes, locust infestations, infections, plagues, etc to aGodDidIt. That has always been wrong. The correct explanations have always been - nature.


So Shmogie, you keep on believing things that man believed 6000 years ago. That's no skin off anyone's nose, except yours.

 

[ecco]

It is illegal for a teacher to say from God,

There are thousands of Creation Myths.
I a teacher were to say "from god" then that teacher must be able to provide evidence for which god he/she is referring to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not sure if you are referring to me, but, I'll assert that abiogenesis occurred.

In the beginning, either the scientific beginning of the earth 4.5 BYA or the Bible beginning of "the first day", there was no life. Today there is life. So, obviously and unquestionably, an abiogenesis process occurred.

You believe aGodDidIt.

I believe that it occurred naturally in a process now sometimes referred to as chemical evolution. Currently, the exact process of that chemical evolution is no known.

So, what to believe? Nature or aGodDidIt? Well, let's look at history. Man has attributed lightning, volcanoes, locust infestations, infections, plagues, etc to aGodDidIt. That has always been wrong. The correct explanations have always been - nature.


So Shmogie, you keep on believing things that man believed 6000 years ago. That's no skin off anyone's nose, except yours.

@shmogie is misrepresenting the argument. The claim was that there was an abiogenesis event. Something that even creationists believe in. Sadly creationists tend to go a bit off the deep end when terms such as "abiogenesis" are used. We know that at one point there was no life on Earth and later there was. The question is was it natural or was it magic? I tend to go with natural.