"Young Earth" creationist discovers 60MM year old fossil

[zyxt9]

Now....to everyone who keeps trying to lump me in with Bible Thumoers, have I demonstrated enough that you are incorrect in your assumption?

Gulo, have I provided enough of my opinion to warrant any level of possibility that it might have merit?

Have we demonstrated yet that the Theory of Evolution is only a theory, NOT FACT due to the unproven elements stated previously (again, show me anything by a respected scientific organization that proclaims the current theory to be fact...the difference is important amongst scientists even if non-scientists do not comprehend the difference).

 

[Gulo Blue]

Evolution currently assumes everything started from one moment of perfect bliss that transformed inorganic material into organic and everything evolved from that.

I don't think it does. I'm probably going to get some of this wrong, but here goes. Lipid by-layers that can form naturally and inorganically can form cells that under the right heat cycling fluctuate between tight-knitted impermeable membranes and looser forms that other molecules can slip through. Other molecules we think of as organic, but can form inorganically and act as catalysts to self-replicate, can move in and out of these membranes. The cycling of the membranes creates opportunities for these molecules to have periods of time where they are in small limited systems for extended periods of time followed by cross-pollinating periods where they are swapped cell to cell. Over eons, progressively more-stable molecular systems formed and replicated and until the entire cell became a self-replicating unit.

Not to imply that that theory is the lynch pin of the entire thing. Theories flesh out over time. We don't say Newton's laws about gravity are wrong because they exclude relativity.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Hydrogen in a jar with a jolt of electricity has created microorganisms. In Nature, that artificial jolt of electricity would be a bolt of lightning.

I think organic molecules have been created through these inorganic means. I don't think any microorganisms have been created yet.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Now....to everyone who keeps trying to lump me in with Bible Thumoers, have I demonstrated enough that you are incorrect in your assumption?

Gulo, have I provided enough of my opinion to warrant any level of possibility that it might have merit?

Have we demonstrated yet that the Theory of Evolution is only a theory, NOT FACT due to the unproven elements stated previously (again, show me anything by a respected scientific organization that proclaims the current theory to be fact...the difference is important amongst scientists even if non-scientists do not comprehend the difference).

I think it parallels the arguments regarding why we're unaware of any aliens and the extreme distances between planets. It's a matter of probability and the extreme timescales involved. It takes so long to achieve life, once you have any, the planet is covered with diverse forms of life in a brief moment by comparison. If the right pool of organic molecules appeared through inorganic means somewhere today, something organic would come along and eat them long before they had the time to progress.

 

[zyxt9]

I don't think it does. I'm probably going to get some of this wrong, but here goes. Lipid by-layers that can form naturally and inorganically can form cells that under the right heat cycling fluctuate between tight-knitted impermeable membranes and looser forms that other molecules can slip through. Other molecules we think of as organic, but can form inorganically and act as catalysts to self-replicate, can move in and out of these membranes. The cycling of the membranes creates opportunities for these molecules to have periods of time where they are in small limited systems for extended periods of time followed by cross-pollinating periods where they are swapped cell to cell. Over eons, progressively more-stable molecular systems formed and replicated and until the entire cell became a self-replicating unit.

Not to imply that that theory is the lynch pin of the entire thing. Theories flesh out over time. We don't say Newton's laws about gravity are wrong because they exclude relativity.

At the time when this process was finally happening, do you prefer the idea that it was only abke to happen in one place and all life evolved from that one moment or the possibility that if it was happening in one place then it was happening in others at roughly the same time (give or take 10 million years...sorry, couldn't resist). If it was happening then, chances are good the same process has been happening since.

Granted as some organisms discover these primative forms as food, the potential for new organisms to survive is decreased, but if they replicate fast enough they could survive. And while this is rarely observed today, back when life was first forming, the Earth was void of these predators...allowing for potential successful lifeforms to appear in many places, with great diversity.

 

[zyxt9]

I will go further that if life evolved from one species, that species would be easily observed at the bottom of geologic fossils. Instead we observe a mixture of small creatures in the earliest fossils. Considering how long it takes the current theory to spin off new large organisms from another large organism, the fossil record would not be as mixed, IMHO. Now some would have increased in size and complexity faster than others (again due to the natural varables), but that doesn't mean today's earthworms had ancestors before mammals. It is possible the mammalian ancestral microorganisms were created first but due to environmental variables it took more time for the growth of the mammalian species to happen, and they were subject to bigger predators that continually retarded the mammalian species to reach today's level.

Again, these things are my opinion. To me it is much more plausible, but that is me.

 

[TheVictors]

Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Hydrogen in a jar with a jolt of electricity has created microorganisms. In Nature, that artificial jolt of electricity would be a bolt of lightning.

Other theories exist too, including ones involving volcanic vents in the ocean providing the necessary heat. I just used the bolt of lightning as a reference to the most common held belief/opinion/non-fact (because no one was there to observe it)

Yeah, except for God who made the lightning bolt.

 

[zyxt9]

Yeah, except for God who made the lightning bolt.

LMAO...ya got me there! How could I have been so blind, but now I see. ;P

 

[TheVictors]

#omnipotence

 

[Gulo Blue]

At the time when this process was finally happening, do you prefer the idea that it was only abke to happen in one place and all life evolved from that one moment or the possibility that if it was happening in one place then it was happening in others at roughly the same time (give or take 10 million years...sorry, couldn't resist).

...the one place, one time thing. Due to the probability/time scales thing.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I will go further that if life evolved from one species, that species would be easily observed at the bottom of geologic fossils.

I think the clues would be more clear from modern genetics rather than from the fossil record; the fact that we all run on DNA and have some in common.

 

[Michchamp]

According to every scientific document written to date, The Theory of Evolution is still listed as a Theory. Prove me wrong with evidence from a legit scientific organization.
...

Did you click either link in my previous post? We've observed species evolve. Fact. There are examples cited in each link, and is Cal Berkeley's department of evolutionary biology not "legit" enough for you?

Evolution currently assumes everything started from one moment of perfect bliss that transformed inorganic material into organic and everything evolved from that.

Yes, I am 100% opposed to that aspect of the theory. I believe the fact scientists have been able to create life in the lab verifies my opinion more than the current theory.

To claim only one moment of creation is more in line with Biblical Creationism. The fact atheists like champ are thumping that as "fact" (none of us were there to witness it) is pure irony.

Many theories abound about what caused that singular moment. I'm of the scientific opinion that all of those could have caused a lifeform. ...

you're confusing The Theory of Evolution with The Theory of Abiogenesis, a separate, but compatible theory of how life originated on Earth.

Unlike evolution, which we've witnessed, and therefore is fact as well as theory, abiogenesis is still just a theory, although it has strong evidentiary support. For one thing, all life on Earth has a common genetic ancestor, which was likely a self-replicating strand of DNA floating around the primordial sludge early in Earth's history. The couple billion years of evolution in between now and then is more than enough time to explain the diversification and complexity of life we observe today... no "Intelligent Design" needed! A Billion Years is a LONG TIME, zyxt.

As Red pointed out, it would be an exceedingly rare event in and of itself, and could only take place once, because once life takes hold it tends to permeate throughout the entire available biosphere, and would thus consume any other unrelated organic matter that originates.

 

[Michchamp]

Here's a pic of zyxt's Grandpa's Book sale at the Scopes Monkey Trial:

anti-evolutionary fervor runs in his blood.

 

[Michchamp]

heh:

 

[Michchamp]

"Scopes was convicted."

Yes... and then the Tennessee Supreme Court threw out the conviction on a technicality so they wouldn't have to deal with the appeal on the Constitutional merits of the case, and the First Amendment violation at issue, thereby preserving the peace for their ignorant, Bible-thumping breathren.

/Tennessee sucks

 

[zyxt9]

I think the clues would be more clear from modern genetics rather than from the fossil record; the fact that we all run on DNA and have some in common.

DNA is DNA, the process to creating an individual gene isn't going to change. What can change are the environmental factors that lead to more or less genes and the way the chains are structured.

According to Evolution, we are related to plants. Sorry, I don't buy it. Why would the process for creating life only happen one time. Ever. It doesn't make sense. Science is about being able to reproduce results. Nature reproduces results all the time. Why would all life come from 1 singular event? Why would the conditions for such a creation only happen 1 time in the entire history of Earth?

 

[Michchamp]

I didn't get the Bolt of lightning thing either


That sounds like something God would do.

Well, something A god would do. I don't think zyxt believes in that one though:

DNA is DNA, the process to creating an individual gene isn't going to change. What can change are the environmental factors that lead to more or less genes and the way the chains are structured.

According to Evolution, we are related to plants. Sorry, I don't buy it. Why would the process for creating life only happen one time. Ever. It doesn't make sense. Science is about being able to reproduce results. Nature reproduces results all the time. Why would all life come from 1 singular event? Why would the conditions for such a creation only happen 1 time in the entire history of Earth?

YOU have questions!

SCIENCE has answers!

or rather, MEN who do SCIENCE have answers!

try READING the things they have written!

 

[zyxt9]

Did you click either link in my previous post? We've observed species evolve. Fact. There are examples cited in each link, and is Cal Berkeley's department of evolutionary biology not "legit" enough for you?



you're confusing The Theory of Evolution with The Theory of Abiogenesis, a separate, but compatible theory of how life originated on Earth.

Unlike evolution, which we've witnessed, and therefore is fact as well as theory, abiogenesis is still just a theory, although it has strong evidentiary support. For one thing, all life on Earth has a common genetic ancestor, which was likely a self-replicating strand of DNA floating around the primordial sludge early in Earth's history. The couple billion years of evolution in between now and then is more than enough time to explain the diversification and complexity of life we observe today... no "Intelligent Design" needed! A Billion Years is a LONG TIME, zyxt.

As Red pointed out, it would be an exceedingly rare event in and of itself, and could only take place once, because once life takes hold it tends to permeate throughout the entire available biosphere, and would thus consume any other unrelated organic matter that originates.

1. champ...some website such as http://www.phylointelligence.com/observed.html is NOT a reputable scientific organization. From that point forward, you proved to be a parrot of misleading information.
2. the Berkley site NEVER said Evolution is a Scientific FACT.
3. I am not confusing evolution and abiogenesis. I am saying that instead of the Theory of Evolution's claim that abiogenesis only happened one time and that resulted in all the life we see on earth, that it actually happened multiple times and is still happening today. Instead of Evolution's singular ancestor, the difference between plants and animals is far more likely to have happened under two different events. If there were two events, then it is likely there was more than two. Speciation is far more likely to have developed in this manner.
4. It is theory, NOT FACT, that all life evolved from 1 common ancestor. There is nothing to prove that as fact. DNA is the requirement for life, the basis of which can be repeated. If it can be repeated, it can happen more than 1 time. From that point forward, the Theory of Evolution is accurate in my opinion. You are holding onto your 1 ancestor BELIEF with as much vigor as a Bible Thumper holds onto their BELIEF that the Book of Genesis is correct. It really is ironic that you don't get that.
5. I never said Intelligent Design was needed. It is my preference and opinion that Intelligent Design is behind it, I NEVER said it was a requirement. You are free to believe your atheistic opinion, I'm free to believe in Intelligent Design. I do not try to force Intelligent Design down your throat the way you attempt to force atheism down everyone else's. Neither you nor I can prove or disprove Intelligent Design or Atheism. It is a matter of preferred opinion, and no amount of Science will ever convince either of us that the other is correct.

 

[zyxt9]

Here's a pic of zyxt's Grandpa's Book sale at the Scopes Monkey Trial:

anti-evolutionary fervor runs in his blood.

More nursery school tactics. I prefer when you at least try to show an understanding of science. I really do not understand why you feel it is necessary to use these tactics, you are smarter than that. Do you do similar stunts before judges? How can you win any cases when you have to resort to such tactics?

 

[Michchamp]

1. champ...some website such as http://www.phylointelligence.com/observed.html is NOT a reputable scientific organization. From that point forward, you proved to be a parrot of misleading information.
2. the Berkley site NEVER said Evolution is a Scientific FACT.
3. I am not confusing evolution and abiogenesis. I am saying that instead of the Theory of Evolution's claim that abiogenesis only happened one time and that resulted in all the life we see on earth, that it actually happened multiple times and is still happening today. Instead of Evolution's singular ancestor, the difference between plants and animals is far more likely to have happened under two different events. If there were two events, then it is likely there was more than two. Speciation is far more likely to have developed in this manner.
4. It is theory, NOT FACT, that all life evolved from 1 common ancestor. There is nothing to prove that as fact. DNA is the requirement for life, the basis of which can be repeated. If it can be repeated, it can happen more than 1 time. From that point forward, the Theory of Evolution is accurate in my opinion. You are holding onto your 1 ancestor BELIEF with as much vigor as a Bible Thumper holds onto their BELIEF that the Book of Genesis is correct. It really is ironic that you don't get that.
5. I never said Intelligent Design was needed. It is my preference and opinion that Intelligent Design is behind it, I NEVER said it was a requirement. You are free to believe your atheistic opinion, I'm free to believe in Intelligent Design. I do not try to force Intelligent Design down your throat the way you attempt to force atheism down everyone else's. Neither you nor I can prove or disprove Intelligent Design or Atheism. It is a matter of preferred opinion, and no amount of Science will ever convince either of us that the other is correct.

1.) that's just a website. they link to the sources at the bottom.

2 - 5.) you're misreading everything else I wrote. maybe intentionally doing this.