"Young Earth" creationist discovers 60MM year old fossil

[Michchamp]

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?

you seem to be confusing this website with a court of law (among many other things you seem to be confused with).

 

[zyxt9]

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

YOU have questions!

SCIENCE has answers!

or rather, MEN who do SCIENCE have answers!

try READING the things they have written!

LOL...that's funny. You post some supposed scientific crack pot trying to claim Evolution is somehow scientific fact when it is only theory, and I'm the one who has to better understand something.

Hey Champ! I just discovered the world's first Perpetual Motion Machine. No really! I'm telling you, it is a scientific FACT. Come on man, I used the word fact, so it must be factual.

People should ALWAYS be skeptical when someone makes a claim that includes the words "scientific fact".

Let me try to explain it to you. No person was around back at the beginning of life on Earth. Yes, we are able to observe natural phenomena in the lab and in nature that we extrapolate out to what happened at that time; however, the inability to actually observe that time will always make it theoretical. You cannot provide evidence all life came from only a singular event any more than I can prove it came from multiple events. At that point it is all conjecture, and that means it is theoretical.

Try reading up on The Scientific Method before you read more websites from crack pots claiming something is scientific fact.

 

[zyxt9]

you seem to be confusing this website with a court of law (among many other things you seem to be confused with).

What I'm doing is asking you to behave more like an adult instead of constantly resorting to the tactics of infants. I'm trying to express that websites are no longer acceptable places to be a bully and use such tactics. They are not funny, they are not productive, they add nothing to the conversation, and they make you appear to be far more stupid than I know to be. You are capable of doing research and providing your supporting conclusions in an adult fashion. The childishness is unnecessary.

I appreciate your insights and opinions on this topic. We are at an impasse as to whether life began as a singular event or multiple events. Speciation, adaptation, genetic mutations...those things are not being questioned by me in general. The degree to which the current Theory of Evolution maintains they took place is where we disagree. We both are using science to support our opinions. This is why Evolution is theory, not fact, because it is impossible to actually know the degree to which these things have happened prior to the ability of science to observe the actual events.

None of that has anything to do with Intelligent Design vs Atheism, so please stop thinking your childish attacks are being productive in any fashion. I'm trying to have an adult conversation. Thank you.

 

[zyxt9]

Champ, do you believe life exists on other planets (or moons/comets/asteroids...potentially)?

I do.

I'm also of the opinion such life will have a very similar DNA structure to what is observed on Earth. The actual species that result will likely be different, but many similarities will exist IMO (eyes, ears, mouths/digestive tracts, skin, and plants too).

Believing life exists on other planets, and that such life is not drastically different from what is on Earth, that means the events that create life are able to happen more than 1 time. So, for me, I believe it could have happened more than 1 time on Earth.

If you believe it could only happen 1 singular time, that is fine, but I'm not sure how to then believe life exists on other planets/moons/comets/asteroids. Maybe life is so dramatically different that it is unlike anything we have imagined. That's possible too, I suppose. I just tend to believe it will be more similar than completely different to lifeforms on Earth.

 

[Gulo Blue]

We share a quarter of our genes with plants.

It's like you have a billion monkeys with typewriters and the first book they produce is The Fellowship of the Ring and the second book is The Two Towers.

 

[zyxt9]

The Universe is filled with repetitive patterns. Galaxies, Solar Systems, Planets, Weather, Molecules, Atoms, Radiation are repeatedly observed throughout the universe (or at a minimum our Solar System). I'm not sure why, when contemplating the repetitiveness and structure of these things, one would think extraterrestrial life would be drastically different (as in not having a DNA-like building block similar to Earth's lifeforms but something so drastically different it defies the observed repetitive structures observed in the universe). IMHO, lifeforms on other planets will have a similar building block structure to Earth's DNA. It might be different elements, but based on the frequency of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen throughout the universe, it seems to me life would have developed in a very similar way elsewhere.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The Universe is filled with repetitive patterns. Galaxies, Solar Systems, Planets, Weather, Molecules, Atoms, Radiation are repeatedly observed throughout the universe (or at a minimum our Solar System). I'm not sure why, when contemplating the repetitiveness and structure of these things, one would think extraterrestrial life would be drastically different (as in not having a DNA-like building block similar to Earth's lifeforms but something so drastically different it defies the observed repetitive structures observed in the universe). IMHO, lifeforms on other planets will have a similar building block structure to Earth's DNA. It might be different elements, but based on the frequency of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen throughout the universe, it seems to me life would have developed in a very similar way elsewhere.

Yeah, but repeated structures or phenomena like planets and weather can be explained through mathematics. Genes across species involve a repeated pattern of a magnitude unlike anything inorganic.

 

[zyxt9]

We share a quarter of our genes with plants.

It's like you have a billion monkeys with typewriters and the first book they produce is The Fellowship of the Ring and the second book is The Two Towers.

IMO that analogy jumps too far into the process. The beginnings of life on Earth were extremely basic. No one expects microorganisms to write books. I do expect the microorganisms on other planets will not be dramatically different than those on Earth because the basic elements will be so similar. You have to consider the initial process as the first block after which all the reproduced blocks follow a similar structure. Carbon being the necessary element to hold the molecular chains together, it inorganically creates chains similar to the DNA double-helix. The differentiation comes into play when the chain is extended and reproduced, which involves the other elements around it. If we create a lifeform in a petri dish, it will "share" genes with humans too, despite being created completely isolated from the supposed single source of life. If we can create that in the lab, my belief is nature was able to create it more than once...and still does create it. If humans blow up everything on Earth and everything died tomorrow, I believe there would eventually be new lifeforms repopulating the planet and the entire planet would be repopulated within 10 million years with an equivalently wide ranging diversity once again (not suggesting humans would exist again, but some types of plants and animals would).

 

[zyxt9]

Yeah, but repeated structures or phenomena like planets and weather can be explained through mathematics. Genes across species involve a repeated pattern of a magnitude unlike anything inorganic.

Depends on what you are analyzing. The DNA building blocks in all of those are carbon based. The double-helix pattern exists in all of them. The similarities are there on the small scale. The differences are based on the natural conditions (elements/weather/radiation) that existed during mutations, but because everything had the same basic beginnings, it is natural that there would be similarities across species.

That is why we would share DNA with microorganisms created in a petri dish that is completely isolated from all possible DNA contamination from the outside.

 

[Gulo Blue]

IMO that analogy jumps too far into the process. The beginnings of life on Earth were extremely basic. No one expects microorganisms to write books.

Microorganisms are books. The shortest DNA known of (a bacterium) would be a 53 page book. The longest (a flowering plant) would be a 50 million page book. People would be around 1 million. Sharing a quarter of the pages suggests a similar lineage. Especially when a lot of the shared stuff is inactive legacy stuff.

 

[Michchamp]

Microorganisms are books. The shortest DNA known of (a bacterium) would be a 53 page book. The longest (a flowering plant) would be a 50 million page book. People would be around 1 million. Sharing a quarter of the pages suggests a similar lineage. Especially when a lot of the shared stuff is inactive legacy stuff.

you need to provide a link to one of zyxt's "legit" scientific organizations or he won't believe you.

 

[zyxt9]

Also, carbon nanotubes are a double helix that is easily recognized as similar to the DNA double helix. They are found in nature, so I'm not sure why it is so difficult to see how nature used that base structure when creating lifeforms. I'm not trying to say something with human genetics suddenly appeared out of nowhere, I'm saying the initial microorganisms that underwent processes evidenced in Evolutionary change had differences initially that resulted in the bigger species differences eventually. Mammals and plants share similarities, but the differences that existed at the initial microorganism stage for each resulted in the drastically different appearances seen today.

To me that makes far more sense than saying when our ancient ancestors were at a certain point, the mutation that happened resulted in a split between plants and animals in a "just because" fashion. What degree of mutation would have to take place to create a split that eventually resulted in two drastically different forms of life, plant and animal? To me it is far more likely that life began in multiple places with different initial base material and that is what resulted in such a drastic differentiation. IMO, it is a far more likely scenario than having plants and animals evolve from the same microorganism.

 

[zyxt9]

Microorganisms are books. The shortest DNA known of (a bacterium) would be a 53 page book. The longest (a flowering plant) would be a 50 million page book. People would be around 1 million. Sharing a quarter of the pages suggests a similar lineage. Especially when a lot of the shared stuff is inactive legacy stuff.

To follow along with this analogy, the books appear somewhat similar in that they have pages and writings in them, but the language used and the story itself is different because the books were written by different authors. They are the same because the initial structure was built similarly, but because each blank book was made in different places on Earth, the content and end result is drastically different.

 

[zyxt9]

Microorganisms are books. The shortest DNA known of (a bacterium) would be a 53 page book. The longest (a flowering plant) would be a 50 million page book. People would be around 1 million. Sharing a quarter of the pages suggests a similar lineage. Especially when a lot of the shared stuff is inactive legacy stuff.

Using the word "suggests" also means it is theoretical, not factual. Do you agree with that from a basic scientific level? I'm asking because I don't want there to be confusion about that for others.

 

[Gulo Blue]

To follow along with this analogy, the books appear somewhat similar in that they have pages and writings in them, but the language used and the story itself is different because the books were written by different authors. They are the same because the initial structure was built similarly, but because each blank book was made in different places on Earth, the content and end result is drastically different.

They're not just the same because they are pages with words. They are the same words in the same order.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Using the word "suggests" also means it is theoretical, not factual. Do you agree with that from a basic scientific level? I'm asking because I don't want there to be confusion about that for others.

Maybe, but in a similar way to how the idea that we aren't living in the Matrix is theoretical, but not observed. Most people don't use the word "fact" in that way though. 1 matching page suggests a little, 2 pages a little more, a significant chunk of all pages between all organisms, plus the fossil record, plus the results of all the experiments done in the field of genetics...if you believe we can call any of our theories a fact, then this is one. There's no standard of certainty where other theories pass and evolution does not. There are people that would say the theory of gravity is a theory, not a fact, but that is a matter of linguistics, not disagreement over the probability of the theory's veracity.

 

[zyxt9]

They're not just the same because they are pages with words. They are the same words in the same order.

And I'm of the opinion you would be able to make a similar claim about life found on another planet when compared to life on Earth. When the initial building blocks are so similar at the most basic level, it is natural that it would give an observer the option to believe it all originated from one ancestor. I highly doubt anyone here would suggest that all life in the universe began from a single ancestor, would they?

The difficulty here is neither of us can prove our opinion. Again, that is why it is theory, not fact. I understand how difficult it can be to accept something that is different from the mainstream way of thinking. Historically that has always been the case for advancements in science, there is great difficulty in attempting to change the established view. That is a good thing, for new opinions need to be thoroughly questioned and not simply accepted. On that note, I appreciate your input and hope you can appreciate that I have a different opinion on the matter.

 

[zyxt9]

Maybe, but in a similar way to how the idea that we aren't living in the Matrix is theoretical, but not observed. Most people don't use the word "fact" in that way though. 1 matching page suggests a little, 2 pages a little more, a significant chunk of all pages between all organisms, plus the fossil record, plus the results of all the experiments done in the field of genetics...if you believe we can call any of our theories a fact, then this is one. There's no standard of certainty where other theories pass and evolution does not. There are people that would say the theory of gravity is a theory, not a fact, but that is a matter of linguistics, not disagreement over the probability of the theory's veracity.

Of the two, if I was forced to rank them in order of solid evidence and concrete absolute certainty, I would say the Theory of Gravity ranks higher than the Theory of Evolution...for me. You have a different opinion, that's fine, you are entitled to it.

I'm not saying evolution is incorrect in general, but just like how gravity was not 100% when Newton conceptualized it despite all evidence at the time supporting it to that measure, I do not believe evolution is 100% accurate and will be adjusted over time as gravity was and continues to be.

Which is why it is still considered a theory by all respectable scientific organizations. Of that, I am not wrong. Might it at some point be changed into a fact? Possibly, but it is not at this time. You can argue that in lay terms it is considered to be a fact, but that does not make it an actual scientific fact. I really do not understand why you, a respected scientific minded person, would disagree with that on a scientific, non-layperson, level.

 

[Gulo Blue]

And I'm of the opinion you would be able to make a similar claim about life found on another planet when compared to life on Earth. When the initial building blocks are so similar at the most basic level, it is natural that it would give an observer the option to believe it all originated from one ancestor. I highly doubt anyone here would suggest that all life in the universe began from a single ancestor, would they?

The difficulty here is neither of us can prove our opinion. Again, that is why it is theory, not fact. I understand how difficult it can be to accept something that is different from the mainstream way of thinking. Historically that has always been the case for advancements in science, there is great difficulty in attempting to change the established view. That is a good thing, for new opinions need to be thoroughly questioned and not simply accepted. On that note, I appreciate your input and hope you can appreciate that I have a different opinion on the matter.

If we find alien life, and we see the same thing, yeah, we're going to start taking the transpermia theories really seriously.

The building blocks being similar doesn't mean the pattern should be the same. Books made up of the same letters can be identical or different.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Of the two, if I was forced to rank them in order of solid evidence and concrete absolute certainty, I would say the Theory of Gravity ranks higher than the Theory of Evolution...for me. You have a different opinion, that's fine, you are entitled to it.

I'm not saying evolution is incorrect in general, but just like how gravity was not 100% when Newton conceptualized it despite all evidence at the time supporting it to that measure, I do not believe evolution is 100% accurate and will be adjusted over time as gravity was and continues to be.

Which is why it is still considered a theory by all respectable scientific organizations. Of that, I am not wrong. Might it at some point be changed into a fact? Possibly, but it is not at this time. You can argue that in lay terms it is considered to be a fact, but that does not make it an actual scientific fact. I really do not understand why you, a respected scientific minded person, would disagree with that on a scientific, non-layperson, level.

Do you have a link to a scientific organization with a standard that calls gravity a fact and evolution a theory?