Projectguy: With all due respect;there's absolutely nothing arbitrary or axiomatic about anything that is mainly based on theory and/or speculation as is the assumtion of life on other planets merely because there're so many of them through out our galaxy or universe for that same matter.On the other hand one should speculate on the subject in question based on our complexity as life forms,the ingredients that need to be of precise and exact measurement combined to form us.We have a designer!
To make a sort of qualitative conclusion (there must be many worlds of life like Earth) based on, if you will, quantitative information (there are innumerable worlds 'out there') is an apples and oranges way of dealing with the issue. This conclusion is by no stretch of the imagination scientific and, again,is utterly biased and arbitrary as is so much of what passes for science today.
Any estimate of a chance of life anywhere is pure speculation in fallacy. How can one arrive with an equation for the chance of life on any given planet without knowing what the origin of life was on our own planet? Did someone assume that Earth had a 100% chance for life to come into being just because it does have and can sustain life? Without knowing the origin of life and how that mechanism works there is no way to quantify an equation of probability to living organisms even here on Earth!
@WILLTHEWGMAN I agree. However the chances of a Earth like planet existing exactly like our own is 110%. The chances of a Earth like planet in general, just in our galaxy is 110%. We have found just in 2 years with the Kepler telescope, 1035 planets, 68 of which are Earth like (confirmed) and 54 of which are in the habitable zone but can't be identified to be neither Earth like, nor gas giant. And those are just the ones we can observe, there are probably dozens of small ones we cannot see.
You also have to agree that even if there was 99 trillion Earth-like planets it still gives us no idea if life was created on any other planet in any mathematical probability without knowing the mathematical probability based on the elements & conditions of how life originated here on Earth. The conditions for life's origin could be opposite the condition that sustain life now & therefore the planets that look less likely to sustain life be better candidates, we just don't know.
jeesh .. the twisted logic in this makes for an intersting display of magical thinking ... trying to fit facts into an ugly hopeless theory ... its like saying "If the number two was equal to three then one plus two would be equal to four, isn't that so crazy! We love you authority thanks for helping us not have to think too hard about anything."
The chance of life occuring at all anywhere are impossible. The calculations are equal to a ferrari being assembled together by space dust. We are alone in the Universe created by God's hand not by some chance.
The Bible tells us why God created the Heavens, it was to show His glory and majesty and for signs and seasons for us, nothing more.
Actually, by our best estimates, the odds of life forming are pretty good. The odds of intelligent life are quite a lot slimmer. Again, at our best estimate, the odds only suggest that there would be one race of intelligent beings at any given time. Hopefully they're wrong.
As to your reasoning, it would disappoint me if you were right. There's more to glory and majesty than size, as a matter of fact, creating a universe just to impress a bunch of hairless apes seems rather egotistical.
Obviously, you haven't watched the rest of the video or know any real science regarding the remarkable rarity of life. Life cannot come from non living matter or chemical processes it can only come from other life. The only way for there to be any life anywhere in the Universe would be for us to have moved it there.
A. No, I didn't watch the entire video before leaving that comment. Now that I have watched it, allow me to assure you that just because a man in a suit says it can't happen, doesn't mean he's right.
B. It really depends on what you mean. The speculated "first organisms" could hardly be called alive; certainly not if we don't consider viruses to be. Where, exactly, would you draw the line between a living organism, and a non-living one?
"because a man in a suit says it can't happen, doesn't mean he's right."
Except when that man in the suit is a evilutionist eh? And hes saying intelligent design cannot happen. Hypocrite, try taking your own damn advice, I know what real science is and evilution is not a science its a religion.
Of coarse the first organisms were alive, thats what organisms are. Chemicals are not alive organisms are. Difference is life, chemicals don't have life you noob.
Actually, no. An "evolutionist" still has to provide evidence, as well as a testable hypothesis that can be used in an experiment. If he fails to do so, nobody will take him seriously.
If you think the reason I doubt ID is because scientists told me to, you're quite mistaken. I doubt it because I doubt any unusual claim until shown evidence of its veracity. I don't believe in string hypothesis; they have no evidence as yet.
Evilution has already been long disproven as a possibility by mutations and natural selection that cannot occur within the dna. Yet hey keep pulling "evidence" out of their asses like you but never with any real facts to back it, only false presumptions based on a willful ignorance. So Actually, yes a evilutionist does have to provide evidence but its a already been proven a pseudo science so we already know there is no possible "evidence" for evilution.
I think the problem is the word "organism." Yes, it's usually used to describe something that's alive, we don't exactly have a word for the product of abiogenesis. It would be a bit like a virus, but simpler.
See, here's the thing; a virus isn't alive. It does a lot of things that living things do, but it doesn't actually live. It is, essentially, a bunch of non-living chemicals.
Actually, yes we do have a word for the product of creation its called life, maybe you heard about it? Your not really that dense are you? Oh wait your a evilutionist.
A bit like a virus?! lol. Viruses carry dna and rna, altho inert they become alive and they cannot make dna on their own they steal it. You must have a organism before you can have a virus. Besides it still must be created viruses or any such things components are irreducibily complex. Viruses are not chemicals they are dna or rna
Wrong again kid. Viruses invade the cells and rob them of their DNA. They are parasites, nothing more. You cannot have a virus that existed without first having a living cell as viruses can only replicate through a living organism, so yes they need to be alive. DNA is not a chemical its information, chemicals do not create information and RNA is just copied DNA. Chemicals cannot create life as I already stated life can ONLY come from other life, thus the whole ID.
23 is a still a child, its your demeanor that gives that away not that adults are just as ignorant.
Yes, that is how viruses work. I didn't say they were living, I said the cell is living. Anyhow your little make believe scenerio about viruses creating life doesn't line up with reality nor does it explain where the viruses came from as chemicals cannot produce life.
B. DNA and RNA are not "chemicals" a chemical doesn't process and store information.
A. Given your behavior throughout this conversation, do you really have the audacity to call me childish? Really?
B. You said that viruses become alive. No, they never do. Also, they never steal DNA.
C. Viruses aren't "creating life" in my scenario. What I was trying to explain to you is that the first "life" wouldn't actually be alive, like viruses, they'd be too simple to perform living processes. The "first life" would likely be random polymers of rna trapped inside of a fatty cont'd
A. Yes, its childish to be willfully ignorant, so yes. I was mostly referring to your demeanor as recognizable to that of a youth and not an adult. How and what you say its distinguishable from adult behavior.
A. Rna isn't a chemical? You're calling ME ignorant?
B. Only a segment of gene actually makes it into the cell. If you're going to call the virus alive because of that, you'd have to say each chromosome is alive, which is clearly not true. The virus' gene doesn't perform any life functions, so it's not alive. The rest of the virus is just a discarded shell at this point, so that's not alive.
B. Yes, again the virus is not alive but once they hijack the cell they are in that sense as the cell is no longer functioning as it was intended, they are restructured by the viruses. So in that sense the virus performs as a living organism. Viruses are parasites not chemicals.
C. There is no such thing as life that is not alive. The first life as is all life, directly from God Himself, that is the only source of any and all life, is a eternal source. What I have been explaining to you is that your scenrio is not possible by the laws of physics. Viruses or chemicals like viruses, whatever you want to label it as cannot form together to create a cell, thats just a fact of science.
C. That's why I put "life" in quotes. Technically, it's a mutating and self replicating chemical reaction, and can't yet be called life for lack of complexity. Not only is this VERY Possible through physics, it's also possible through chemistry. That's why I described the earliest critter for you, so you'd see how it would work. Apparently, you've failed to do so. In order to call it impossible, you'd have to deny hydrogen bonding. Seriously.
Mutations do not adquire additional information, they lose information. So being that mutations cannot be a factor for evilutionary processes, you must develop another source for your theory other than mutations. And no, its not possible through physics or chemistry. You can separate light too and blast it with radiation and split it and make it explode and yet it doesn't develop into living organisms.
Nylonase. By adding a nucleotide, and frame-shifting, a cell became capable of digesting nylon.
A single bit of information was added. None was lost.
Gene duplication adds information too, albeit to less effect.
You keep saying that it's impossible for a fatty acid bilayer membrane to contain a random string of RNA, and reproduce itself with variation in a convection current.
WHY is this impossible, then. Which rules does it break?
@PrometheusWithLight For one is that the systems are irriducibily complex meaning they could never have evolved from single parts to form a system they all have to come together at the same time and evilution doesn't allow for that to happen. Secondly, chemicals themselves lack the information to develop into anything. Without a directed source of information, namely God, those chemicals would never form into anything. Chemical reactions cannot produce living organisms.
A. irreducibly complex systems could evolve via the elimination of redundancies.
B. Until you understand how the fatty acid bubble/rna polymer reaction can reproduce itself with variation in a convection current, I see little point in trying to educate you on the origin of information. Once you understand the reaction, THEN ask me how it could produce information.
A. No, irreducibily complex systems could not evolve by redundancies. They would have to be completely redisigned with new information. Information which is not there and not being added except in your imagination.
B. The origin of information is God, not chemicals. Once you understand this concept then and only then will you get a real education. I can only educate you so much.
A. Do you even know what I just said? Ok, I'll ask you to give me an example of an irreducibly complex structure that humans build that involves the elimination of a redundant system. Take your time.
B. In order for me to tell you what I think on the origin of information, I need to know that you've got the basics. Tell me you at least acknowledge that, if we had rna, and a fatty acid bubble, that it starts a self replicating reaction.
A. Of coarse I know what you said, thats why I answered you. What is it you fail to comprehend this time? A irriducibily complex system could be illustrated by a mousetrap as it has. If you remove any of the parts it ceases to function as it was designed. Thats what it means. Manmade systems don't eliminate redundancies unless programmed to do so. Anything else I can educate you on?
A. Wrong, a mousetrap is not built via the elimination of redundancies. Try again.
We have built IC systems this way. Being an engineer, I can think of many. I just want you to give me one, because I don't think you know what I mean by a redundant system.
I have one right on the top of my head. I'll give you a hint: Masonry.
I didn't say a mousetrap was. I was educating you on what irreducible complexity is as you don't seem to understand the concept. I know what a redundant system is but how your implying it in regards to irriducible complex systems is not accurate. Duplication is not adding or removing parts.
Oh, I know exactly what irreducibly complex means. How I'm applying it is PERFECTLY accurate in regards to irreducibly complex systems. I'm still waiting for that example.
Let me give you another hint: The secret to this structure was jealously guarded by stonemasons for centuries.
As to duplication, it implies that the second system is a duplicate, which is pointless, isn't it?
No, you don't understand what a irriducibily complex system is because if you did you would know that it cannot function without all its parts and duplication of the system doesn't account for its origin. So no your not accurately applying the concept.
Let me give you a hint, its like a mousetrap, you have the spring, the platform and bar. Now, without any of those you do not have a working mousetrap. You might find another function but the system ceases at thatpoint
Lulzy. Cute. You think the only possible redundant system is a perfect duplicate.
Ok, it's clear you're not going to get it.
It's an archway. Archways are irreducibly complex. If you remove a brick, the whole thing collapses. So the question is, how was it made?
The answer is, you need a redundant system; a wooden frame. The redundant system is less efficient, and less complicated, perhaps even less irreducible.
ha. Well, you can remove a brick without the archway collapsing, you just build a suport for the archway. Were talking about organic machines not a man made structure and there is no support for these machines while the rest evolves. .And no I wasn't thinking a perfect duplicate, that wouldn't make any sense not that you do anyhow.
A. Yes, I know organisms aren't man-made. I just wanted you to know how redundant systems work, because without you knowing that, any argument I make will fall on deaf ears.
B. You mean we don't see any support right now. Take the lungs (thought I said this before.) They don't have support right now. You rip a persons lungs out of their chest, and they will die in minutes.
Now, what about a creature with lungs and gills? Removing its lungs certainly won't help it, but it'll (cont'd)
@Uaz31 survive as long as it has water. Or, you can nix the gills, and it'll just have to breathe air. This is my point; if a creature starts off with one system, adds another, more complicated system, then takes the first away because it's not needed anymore, it'll leave people wondering how the second, very complex system, got there.
B. Oh I very much have the "basics" the problem is you don't. Science doesn't work like you explain. Your skipping the whole development of the DNA, self replication doesn't account for its development or origin.
Yeah, I haven't gone into the development of dna yet, because the first replicating reaction would use RNA. DNA came significantly later, because it requires more proteins. The advantage to it is that it's far more stable, with a lower rate of mutation.
The reason why I put that off is I wanted to make sure you knew that the reaction I spoke of, with the fatty acid bubble and the rna segments, could replicate itself.
Yes, I understand what DNA is, what you don't seem to understand is that it cannot be created from chemical processes and random variations. Even mankind cannot assemble a dna from chemicals with all the technology we have. Its alot more complex than you want to believe it is.
fatty acid bubble that's caught in a convection current. (It's been demonstrated that the early earth atmosphere can, in the presence of water and an energy source, react to form fatty acids, amino acids, and rna and dna nucleotides.)
B. Yes they bloody well are chemicals. Do you want their chemical structure?
Information can be stored in nearly any format you can think of, even light itself.
No, it has not been demonstrated that the early earth atmosphere can produce rna or dna or any of the compounds for life. Thats complete nonsense, I don't know where you got that from but its pure pseudo science. First of all nobody knows what the early earth atmosphere consisted of in the context of a millions of years old earth. God's word teaches us how it was created.
A. Is not. Gravitation calculations combined with studies of other planets atmospheres show us how planetary atmosphere formation works. Our atmosphere started out rather like Venus', actually. This is backed up with considerable evidence, including red bed sedimentary deposits.
B. So you're saying that we should refuse to look at all of this evidence, and instead trust to a bronze age storybook that says the earth is flat, and is circled by the sun.
Secondly, DNA (RNA is just copied DNA, so I don't know why you keep mentioning them together) is the very component of life itself which contains all the information and DNA cannot be formed from chemical processes and random varations.
The information must be directed by intelligence. What your suggesting is exactly like a computer being formed out in space by space dust. DNA is incredible complex its not a simple structure and its scientifically impossible for that information to develop by blind chance.
Computers don't form out of space dust via naturalistic processes. Information, in the case of dna, can. I'd be glad to explain that to you, but first you have to understand the basics. Can you acknowledge this much, that a fatty acid bubble could form with random strings of RNA trapped inside, given the presence of both fatty acids and Rna?
B. What I was implying is that they are not chemicals in the sense you are implying. DNA is not just a bunch of chemicals its the information for the cell. Our whole bodies are made up of chemicals.
You cannot just put a bunch of chemicals together tho and create a living cell, it doesn't work that way. Yes light is a great example for stored information. God Himself is a light, in the beginning their was light. Light is energy and energy can become matter it is also the carrier of information.
No, that's not how abiogenesis works. I said that. Fatty acid bubble with bits of rna trapped inside =/= living cell.
There isn't stored information in all light; I was merely pointing out that you can store information in ANY medium. In other words, the fact that it's chemicals doesn't matter, it can still store info.
Your problem is that your confusing life with chemicals. You can have all the chemicals in the Universe and their never going to organize themselves into a living organism. Bleach is a chemical, there is no DNA in bleach. Why? Because it has no life. DNA is life . NAme one chemical that has DNA in it, hint -blood is not a chemical.
Yes the cell is alive, good. Virus is not yes, but virus in cell is alive as cell is not what it once was, it is product of virus, alive
The reason why there's no dna in bleach is because it's got the wrong chemicals in it. Nitrogen, chlorine, and oxygen can't be formed into dna because that's not what dna is made of.
Blood is made of chemicals too. In fact, without the polydentate ligand hemoglobin, blood would be absolutely useless.
The virus is using the living cell, but that doesn't mean the virus is alive. In order to say the virus is alive, in that sense, you'd also have to say each chromosome is alive.
I was implying that chemicals by themselves lack the ability to form any kind of dna. You can take all the right chemicals and they will never form DNA by themselves. Take a cell and split it open, shake up the test tube, maybe hit it with lightning it will never reform its components. These systems were designed, that is obvious and that is what real science shows us, not your pseudo science of evilution.
Methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen. Mix these chemicals in the presence of an energy source, and you will get rna and dna nucleotides, fatty acids, and various amino acids. This has been done in controlled experiments MANY TIMES.
A cell is an extremely complex organism. If you did that to a fatty acid bubble with RNA inside, it could very easily reform itself.
hahah. Water. ya and whats in water? all the components you mentioned. The dna would have to come from the water, which was already there. And no its never been done before forming DNA. Nucleotides?! Thats not DNA. All your making in your experiement is chemicals not DNA. Man, you been watching too many frankenstien movies.
You cant duplicate life from chemicals. Life is Gods' and Gods' alone. Best one could do is make synthetic cells but never near as complex.
"Whats in water" is just water; not ammonia, not carbon dioxide, not hydrogen gas. The atmosphere is no longer reducing, it no longer contains significant amounts of ammonia and hydrogen gas, which is why this must be done in a controlled environment. Where it has been done. Many times.
Nucleotides, bonded together, are dna. That's what dna is. Dna is a string of nucleotides.
Yes, but nucleotides are not DNA until bonded and bonded to in a INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED ORDER. Which random variation cannot do. "The atmosphere is no longer reducing"?! Nobody knows what the early atmosphere was in the context of a millions of years old Earth or that it has been reducing those compounds throughout time. Your making assumptions and calling them facts thats not science.
A. Actually no, a nucleotide is not considered to be dna, anymore than a amino acid is considered to be a elephant.
B. I already know about DNA and RNA.
C. No we don't know the early earth was reducing. Were you there? no. There has been many speculations but the truth is the earth is not millions of years old but thousands. The atmosphere was different yes, it would of had to be but exactly how much different we do not know, altho it was always breathable air.
So how do "evilutionists" think dna storage of information evolved? You tell me what they say, if you're such a smart guy.
C. No, but a lot of iron particles WERE there. In an oxidizing atmosphere, they'd rust, leaving red bands in the rock called "red beds." These layers are absent from precambrian rock, showing clearly that the atmosphere wasn't oxidizing.
Or do you have a problem now with basic chemistry?
B. I could care less what evilutionists believe, except when they try to pass off their imaginations as facts.
C. Not necessarily, your assuming that the precambrian rock is millions of years old. Its circular reasoning. I have no problems with chemistry I like science.
A. Of course not. That would involve realizing your mistake.
B. Yeah, it's clear to me you weren't truthful when you claimed to know what I was going to tell you about dna and rna.
C. First of all, that's not circular reasoning. Secondly, what you MEANT to accuse it of being was an argument with a faulty premise. We know that the rock is millions of years old because of radiometric dating.
I never claimed to know what you were going to say. Interesting how you feel the need to put words in my mouth. I said I already know what DNA and RNA are
C. First of all yes, it is circular reasoning because your basing the hypothesis on a hypothesis, thats what we call circular reasoning. Just like they do with fossils and strata layer to date them. They try and date the fossil by the layers and the layers by the fossils.
And used in response to what I said, that you knew what I was going to say is implied.
C. That's not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning means, quite literally, that your reasoning becomes a circle. Example: Claim A is true because claim B is true. Claim B is true because claim A is true. It forms a circle.
Actually, they date the strata these days with radiometric dating, since if it doesn't work, everything we know about nuclear physics is wrong.
Radiometric dating is not accurate past known history being approximately 3,000 B.C. Even within known history its not a reliable, its not really being used as much for dating because of the inaccuracies. When dating back that far you have to assume that their hasn't been any changes in millions of years.
What the hell are you talking about? I just explained to you how we know that each of these methods is reliable. In order for them to not work, physics itself would roll over and die. Just to check if this is true, we've chained each of these to the next, and confirmed them with independent dating methods. I mean, hell, even dendrochronology reaches to 20,000 bc, and ice cores go back five times as far!
But its all circular reasoning. They base the dates on a presumption, the preconceived notion that its millions of years old, in part because of the radiometric dating. So no they only go back as far as they want to believe they do. Its interesting to note that we also know the date of Noah's flood being 4,990 B.C. which is almost exactly 7,000 years from now, 2011 to be exact. If only they would date those cores on that timescale we would have more accuracy.
Yes, I know how they date using radiometric daing. But, like I said they presume that those rates have not changed over many thousands and even millions of years thats pseudo science.
Ice cores do not give accurate dates unless your timescale that you measure those dates on is correct. And like the radiometric dating they assume that nothing has changed in millions of years. After a few thousand years none of it is really reliable as being accurate.
A. Yeah, remember the bit about physics rolling over to die? That's what would happen if those rates changed. Making the assumption that physics stopped working, regardless of the fact that radiometric dating is confirmed through independent methods, is pseudoscience.
B. Ice cores give us dating to the year because of how ice cores are formed.
And yes, Im a young Earth creationist, only not the 6,000 year old earth creationist. Thats not what the Bible teaches. The flood was 7,000 years ago and creation was 11,013 B.C. 13,000 years to 1988. Those are very accurate dates based on a careful study of the Bibles geneologies.
This is a creationist video, why would you be surprised that a creationist is watching it?
B. Yeah, the ID theorists would be very, very, very upset to have their theory called "creationism." Read up on the wedge document and the dover trial.
A. Neither. The geneologies in Genesis 5 and 11 chapters start from Adam and Eve. Thats why its possible given other information about the timeline that we can date creation itself.
Ok, there seems to be some confusion. I figured you were basing the genealogy dates off of Jesus' birth (0 AD). Tell me, then, what date you use to pin this whole thing down?
Well actually we have the right dates for Jesus's birth too. He was not born 0 A.D. there is no year 0 when you go from bc to ad it just skips 0. But ya Jesus was born in 7 B.C. and was crucified in 33 A.D. He was 38 years old almost 39.
Its a very detailed study and goes through alot of kings and pharohs of eygpt even. All based on what the Bible mentions to arrive at specific dates. The Jews were very good at keeping records.
Its also interesting to note that the ice cores have irregularities at their approximately -7,000 or 8,000 year range they probably claim due to something else. But in reality thats when most of the ice formed.
Yeah, only that's contradicted by the evidence. It doesn't explain the annual bands, it doesn't explain explain the changes in conductivity between layers, and it certainly doesn't explain the CO2 pattern.
As to the K-Ar dating used for that rock, it's confirmed both through basic nuclear physics, and rubidium strontium dating. Rubidium strontium is likewise confirmed through nuclear physics, and is in agreement with Uranium Thorium methods. Uranium thorium is confirmed through nuclear physics, and radiocarbon. Radiocarbon is confirmed through nuclear physics, dendrochronology, ice core samples, and more.
So its all guesswork, but we already know how old the Earth is its 13,000 years old. This info is from a recent study of the Bibical timeline of history based on the geneologies of Genesis 5 and 11. Lengthy but if your ever interested you can find the work at familyradio dott comm under online literature, "adam when?"
Trolling you? No. Its more likely your trolling me. I don't stalk people and if I did it would be a beautiful girly who adored the God of the Bible as much as I do.
5. If your claim is that god is testing us with all this evidence that supports evolution, has it yet occurred to you that god might have created the universe, knowing that we'd evolve naturally, then placed amongst us a book of pure deception, just to test our rationality?
Within known history, radiometric dating has serious issues too, altho it is closely accurate at times. Its accuracy has been tested thru the years, recently rock from Mt saint Helens was tested to be millions of years old but it was recently formed in the 1980 eruption.
The lava had bits of old rock in it. Scientists wanted to determine what effect the lava would have on this rock, or what effect the rock would have on the lava. The rock formed by the lava tested out just fine, modern rock. The rock that tested to be millions of years old, genuinely was.
No, that wasn't the same test. These samples were taken in by people diliberately testing the accuracies of the method. But thats only one example, radiometric dating has been very much inaccurate on a many number of times. And not just by a little but thousands and like the lava rock millions of years.
Yes, they were testing the accuracy of the method... by testing the effect of older rock on younger, and vice versa. It's a study commonly cited by creationists who misunderstood the gist of the test, thinking it disproved carbon dating.
I'm well aware of the factors that throw off carbon dating, as are scientists. That's why carbon dating is never used in certain circumstances. (Example: it can't be used to date many forms of aquatic life.)
Nah, it wasn't to disprove carbon dating. Carbon dating is fairly accurate WITHIN KNOWN HISTORY. Carbon dating past that is not accurate nor can it be claimed to be so. Thats just not something that can be said is factual. They do those random tests to show how its not accurate when scaled past known history.
It's very much accurate, so long as you don't do something stupid with it (like testing an organism that doesn't get its carbon from the atmosphere, for example.)
I wish to hear more of these tests. It may be that they, like the one you discussed earlier, were merely determining the effect of various factors on radiometric dating.
Probably in part, but they were creationists, it was also a diliberate testing of the accuracy of the methods when they had it tested. They tested 2 rocks at the same time as I recall. They knew they might be identified as creationists. I think the other one was from some rock in Japan or something. To throw them off their track lol.
I'm somewhat skeptical that they were creationists, given the lack of creationists in the scientific community, but if you'd find me a link to their study...
Actually, if you're right about how they did that test, you might very well be right about them being creationists. Only a creationist would leave so many variables.
Tested only two rocks with one of the rocks not even coming from that area?
So much could go wrong with such a poorly designed test.
What? There are plenty of creationist in the scientific community. Not all believe in the Bibical account but they agree with intelligent design. I don't recall specifically I think that was from the ICR site, ill try to find it. What about Bibical archeology? Those are geologists and their all creationists. Its a growing field, very interesting to find items from Bibical times that varify the authenticity of the Bibical account.
They all seem to be historians to me, rather than scientists. It seems their magazine examines history over the past 2,000 years as it relates to the bible. I only glanced at it, but I didn't really see anything having to do with anything older than Jesus.
I'm not terribly fond of middle eastern history, so it doesn't interest me much. They do list "busting the DaVinci code" as a very factual book, which I thought was... unusual.
Anyway, how do you reconcile your belief that the world is less than 20,000 years old with the fact that we can see stars over 20,000 light years away? (We can determine this distance via parallax trigonometry.)
Well because the light would have already been here, that it didn't need to travel to orginally be here. He said let there be light not ok, now im going to wait a few trillion years for all that light to get here. And He created the very physics of the Universe anyhow, whos to say He can't bring that light here instantly.
And when you think about how He is outside of time, space and matter, it makes a bit more sense.
Ok, so you're saying he set the light in position 20k light years away, so it only LOOKS like the light has been traveling hundreds of thousands of years to get here, because he created a universe in which there is a constant velocity of light. I suppose you likewise say he also adjusted the sun's helium content so it only SEEMS to be four billion years old, and seeded enough radioactive daughter products that the earth seems to be older than it is, and he must've fabricated (cont'd)
No, not saying that. The light is traveling here but when the Universe was created, when God set all in motion that the light was already here to begin with that originally it didn't have to travel to get here because God brought it here. It doesn't make sense to us from our perspective but were not God. God is not bound by the laws of the Universe. Imagine if there were no time and no space and light was infinite well it wouldnt need to travel would it?
Yeah, that's what I said. You're saying god evidently took the light from these stars, and set it in position so that when it got here, it only looks like it had been travelling for a long time.
Out of curiosity, if "we're not god," why do you have so much faith in the bible? How do you know the guys who wrote it got it right? After all, they're not god...
Its not because of what they wrote down, its because of what God gave them to write down. I know it is the very word of God, for several reasons. One is prophecy but mostly its because I recognize the truths spoken in it. Those men were men of God. You'd think if they were trying to make up some story that were not true they would not have gave account of all the misery, such as Christ being spit on and crucified.
@Uaz31 every tree ring older than 13k or however many years old you say the earth is... He did all of these deceptive things, in order to make the universe appear much older than it is... what, to test our faith in a single book written millenia ago by people who hadn't yet figured out that the earth was spherical, who hadn't even figured out irrigation?
Tell me, is it not possible then that such a god is testing our rationality, NOT our faith?
Well the trees would have grew at a faster rate earlier in time, they too were subject to the curse of man's sin, so the rings were more plenty then. Before the flood it must have been like jurassic park everywhere, with higher oxygen content in the air as well making the plants and animals much larger and longer lifespans too. You said yourself that the atmosphere was receeding, I think so too but from a much more plentyful one.
I believe Heisbrining judgement on thisworld as a result of our own sin.I have a problem with the whole "testing"concept.I believe it would be better to say He trys us, or proves us rather. Its a judgement onsome and a blessing on others.
First, the banded iron is not direct evidence of a reducing atmosphere; it only suggests that an earlier reducing atmosphere may have existed. Other options are certainly possible. The iron formations contain oxidized iron and would require an oxidizing atmosphere or other abundant source of oxygen!
A second problem is that the iron formations do not record a simultaneous, worldwide precipitation event, but are known to occur in older strata when the atmosphere was supposed to be reducing and in younger strata when the atmosphere was undoubtedly oxidizing.
The problem is that we don't have a ton of samples from that time that haven't been metamorphosed. All we know is, samples older than 2.5 billion years don't have it, samples younger do.
I see absolutely no problem with them saying that they've found 2.3 billion year old samples that show the presence of oxygen. This comes a bit after the proposed atmospheric transition, and I'm surprised Dimroth and Kimberly didn't know that.
Dimroth and Kimberley compare Archean iron formations (believed to have been deposited at the same time as unstable metallic mineral placers more than 2.3 billion years ago) with Paleozoic iron formations (believed to have been deposited in an oxidizing atmosphere less than 0.6 billion years ago). The similarities can be used to argue that the Archean atmosphere was oxidizing.
A third problem is that red, sandy, sedimentary rocks called "red beds" are found in association with banded iron formations. The red color in the rock is imparted by the fully oxidized iron mineral hematite, and the rocks are characteristically deficient in unoxidized or partly oxidized iron minerals (e.g., pyrite and magnetite).
@Uaz31 Yes, that is what a red bed is. (How is this a problem?) If you're suggesting that rust seeps down through the sedimentary rock, that would make the red bed appear to be older, not younger.)
Not suggesting rust seeps down altho thats certainly likely. Why would you think it would make it appear older? Specifically millions of years old or billions whatever it is now.
@PrometheusWithLight Because magnetite would be more stable in an atmosphere with lower oxygen pressure, some evolutionists have argued that banded iron accumulated during the transition from a reducing to a fully oxidizing atmosphere some 1.9 billion years ago. Soluble ferrous iron abundant in the early reducing sea, they suppose, was precipitated as oxygen produced the insoluble, ferric iron of the modern oxidizing sea.
When sulfur combines with metals under reducing conditions the result is sulfide minerals such as pyrite (FeS2), galena (PbS), and sphalerite (ZnS). When sulfur combines with metals under oxidizing conditions the result is sulfate minerals such as barite (BaSO4), celestite (SrSO4), anhydrite (CaSO4), and gypsum (CaSO42H2O). If the earth had a reducing atmosphere, we might expect extensive stratified, sulfide precipitates in Archean sedimentary rocks.
These would not have formed by volcanic-exhalative processes (as some sulfide minerals do even today), but directly from sea water (impossible in our modern oxidizing ocean). No deposits of this type have been found. Instead, Archean bedded sulfate has been reported from western Australia, South Africa, and southern India.11 Barite appears to have replaced gypsum which was the original mineral deposited as a chemical precipitate.
This provides evidence of ancient oxidizing surface conditions and oxidizing ground water. The extent of the oxidizing sulfate environment and its relation to ancient atmospheric composition are speculation, but, again we see evidence of Archean oxygen.
Sulphide minerals in early Archean chemical sedimentary rocks of the eastern Pilbara district, Western Australia
There ya go. Deposited from the ocean, in the Archean. I agreed with you that the atmospheric conditions changed in the Archean. If that is true, logically, we will find evidence of time periods with a reducing atm, and times with an oxidizing one.
Oh wow, what a hypocrite, you pasted and copied information from the web. Oh no wait that all comes from your superiour intellect right? lol.
I think its much more likely that their was not a "reducing atmosphere" at all. I think it was more a receeding atmosphere of oxygen content. Not so much hygrogen, as this world did not form from a gas cloud. It was formed fully able to support human life from the very start and it was much more plentyful.
Most of my arguments do come straight from my memory, that's why when you google my posts, you'll never find those exact words on any site. On occasion, when you challenge me for evidence, I tell you where to find it. That's not copypasta.
Frankly, it doesn't matter what you think is more likely. It's evidence that counts.
When a rock fragment is deposited, its surface is in contact with the external environment and can be altered chemically. Thus, pebbles and lava flows in the modern atmosphere weather to form oxide minerals at their surfaces.
Even in the ocean this weathering occurs. In a similar fashion, Dimroth and Kimberley report oxidative weathering of pebbles occurring below a banded iron formation and describe hematite weathering crusts on Archean pillow basalt (believed to represent a submarine lava flow). Again, Archean oxygen is indicated.
Red beds are known to occur below one of the world's largest Proterozoic iron formations and have been reported in Archean and lower Proterozoic rocks. By their association with iron formations, red beds also indicate oxidizing conditions.
Again, no problem with them finding red beds in the archean.
Speaking of old rocks, they DID find organic carbon in the greenland sample of hadean rock (which, by the way, had UNoxidized iron deposits,) which seems to imply not only was the atmosphere anoxic at this time, but that there was some sort of "life".
@PrometheusWithLight Water-concentrated, unstable metallic minerals are not diagnostic of reducing conditions. The many mineral forms of ferrous and ferric iron in Archean and lower Proterozoic rocks are most suggestive of oxygen-rich conditions. Sulfate in the oldest rocks indicates oxygen in the water.
There is no sulfate in the oldest rocks. Are you talking about the Greenland hadean samples?
Those don't have sulfate. They do, however, have unoxidized iron bands...
By the way, if the change happened in the archean, then it goes without saying that you'd find it in the proterozoic, doesn't it? The proterozoic happened AFTER the archean. You'd find red beds in the late proterozoic too, and the phanerozoic.
Not neccessarily, because your assuming again that their was some kind of constant. The flood waters are obviously a result of upper layers of sediment. Again, it is evidence for a rich atmosphere of oxygen before the flood as I insisted. This explains the larger plants and animals as well. Why we find dragonfly fossils with 3 foot wingspans. Did you know farmers use high oxygen levels to create gigantic veggies and fruit? They probably lived longer too, obviously
Also I refer you to the coal layers which are also evience for a flood as well. Aside from all that there is the soft tissue with red blood cells found from a T Rex fossil. Actually on 3 separate occasions. Noahs ark has recently been publically announced as being discovered on Mt Ararat, the exodus evidence as well as the real mt Sinai location and evidence has been unearthed. You really have no more reason to deny that, yes, God did it just as the Bible indicates. No more excuses
1. The "T-Rex tissue" didn't actually contain any cells whatsoever, and was, in fact, just a couple of protiens that we're not sure came from a T-rex. It would be fascinating if it turned out to be truly a dino protein, but it doesn't demonstrate that a flood occurred.
2. As I recall, that was a mud flow. Not a ship. They found several others just like it.
3. I grow weary of your imbecility. I challenge you to actually re-read my posts and comprehend what they mean.
Thats not true, bone, remenants of what could only be red blood cells and other soft tissue was indeed found within the fossilized bone. This is clear evidence that dinosaurs could not have died out more than a few thousand years ago. 7,000 years to be exact. So yes, it does give credance to the flood story as you need rapid burial and yes, water for fossilization and that doesn't take millions of years. Fossilization can happen in only a few years given the right cond.
1. Yeah, I was going from memory from another find. This must be a new one. I'll concede that they found what appears to be a couple of cells, even though they themselves said they weren't sure if it was actually a Trex cell.
2. Not really, no. The fact that the cells haven't decomposed was very, very, VERY lucky, but not proof of a young earth.
3. When that sort of fossilization happens, you can tell by the solubility of the fossil minerals.
Also the T-rex find was only one of 3 findings all showing simular results of soft tissue and yes, bone. The most recent was in 2009. Its obvious this could only be from the animal itself, but of coarse the evilutionists would believe anything but the idea for the sake of their own religion.
2. eh, no. Your thinking of the site below the mountain. This is on the top of the mountain. Its been documented as being seem by several people over the years but this is the first time its been video taped and explored more throughly. More expeditions will no doubt be done. 7 rooms were found half buried in volcanic rock and ice and trap door to a second floor which was not opened. Its at the top of the mountain not the bottom. That bottom site was a old house or like.
Yeah, I was thinking of the older version of the Ark site. This one is apparently a few rooms that they decided was an ark. It'll be interesting to see what happens when they've fully explored it, won't it? I wonder what they'd say if they found more rooms, but not in the general shape of an ark.
Increasing the oxygen content does not make things grow bigger.
Let me guess: Hovind lectures?
First of all, no. Farmers can't control the atmosphere of their crops, much though they'd like to.
In the hovind lecture, he was actually talking about a japanese fella that managed to grow the world's largest tomato plant. What hovind neglected to point out was that he was not, in fact, using increased oxygen, but was growing hydroponically. Growing vine plants hydroponically makes them big.
An evolutionist can maintain that a reducing atmosphere existed before any rocks available for study formed, but such a belief is simply a matter of faith. The statement of Walker is true, "The strongest evidence is provided by conditions for the origin of life. A reducing atmosphere is required."13 The proof of evolution rests squarely on the assumption of evolution!
And that designer's name is JESUS.
RIVERANIEVESZ 1 week ago
Projectguy: With all due respect;there's absolutely nothing arbitrary or axiomatic about anything that is mainly based on theory and/or speculation as is the assumtion of life on other planets merely because there're so many of them through out our galaxy or universe for that same matter.On the other hand one should speculate on the subject in question based on our complexity as life forms,the ingredients that need to be of precise and exact measurement combined to form us.We have a designer!
RIVERANIEVESZ 1 week ago
as soon as the guy said "i'm an astrobiologist" i knew this was a creationist video
jnthnwilliam 3 months ago
@jnthnwilliam Google astrobiology. Some academic research will do you good.
nazra7 1 month ago
To make a sort of qualitative conclusion (there must be many worlds of life like Earth) based on, if you will, quantitative information (there are innumerable worlds 'out there') is an apples and oranges way of dealing with the issue. This conclusion is by no stretch of the imagination scientific and, again,is utterly biased and arbitrary as is so much of what passes for science today.
projectguy1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The assumption that the number of worlds being so great makes it axiomatic that there are worlds of life like Earth is completely arbitrary.
projectguy1 4 months ago
The assumption that the number of worlds being so great makes it axiomatic that there are worlds of life like Earth is completely arbitrary.
projectguy1 4 months ago
Any estimate of a chance of life anywhere is pure speculation in fallacy. How can one arrive with an equation for the chance of life on any given planet without knowing what the origin of life was on our own planet? Did someone assume that Earth had a 100% chance for life to come into being just because it does have and can sustain life? Without knowing the origin of life and how that mechanism works there is no way to quantify an equation of probability to living organisms even here on Earth!
WILLTHEWGMAN 11 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN I agree. However the chances of a Earth like planet existing exactly like our own is 110%. The chances of a Earth like planet in general, just in our galaxy is 110%. We have found just in 2 years with the Kepler telescope, 1035 planets, 68 of which are Earth like (confirmed) and 54 of which are in the habitable zone but can't be identified to be neither Earth like, nor gas giant. And those are just the ones we can observe, there are probably dozens of small ones we cannot see.
Videos4USArmy 5 months ago
@Videos4USArmy
You also have to agree that even if there was 99 trillion Earth-like planets it still gives us no idea if life was created on any other planet in any mathematical probability without knowing the mathematical probability based on the elements & conditions of how life originated here on Earth. The conditions for life's origin could be opposite the condition that sustain life now & therefore the planets that look less likely to sustain life be better candidates, we just don't know.
WILLTHEWGMAN 5 months ago
jeesh .. the twisted logic in this makes for an intersting display of magical thinking ... trying to fit facts into an ugly hopeless theory ... its like saying "If the number two was equal to three then one plus two would be equal to four, isn't that so crazy! We love you authority thanks for helping us not have to think too hard about anything."
WalterWalkie 1 year ago
@WalterWalkie Aren't you just a cheery ray of sunshine!
salmagnum 1 year ago
@salmagnum heheh yeh sorry something about this program got to me^^
WalterWalkie 1 year ago
The chance of life occuring at all anywhere are impossible. The calculations are equal to a ferrari being assembled together by space dust. We are alone in the Universe created by God's hand not by some chance.
The Bible tells us why God created the Heavens, it was to show His glory and majesty and for signs and seasons for us, nothing more.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Actually, by our best estimates, the odds of life forming are pretty good. The odds of intelligent life are quite a lot slimmer. Again, at our best estimate, the odds only suggest that there would be one race of intelligent beings at any given time. Hopefully they're wrong.
As to your reasoning, it would disappoint me if you were right. There's more to glory and majesty than size, as a matter of fact, creating a universe just to impress a bunch of hairless apes seems rather egotistical.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Obviously, you haven't watched the rest of the video or know any real science regarding the remarkable rarity of life. Life cannot come from non living matter or chemical processes it can only come from other life. The only way for there to be any life anywhere in the Universe would be for us to have moved it there.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
A. No, I didn't watch the entire video before leaving that comment. Now that I have watched it, allow me to assure you that just because a man in a suit says it can't happen, doesn't mean he's right.
B. It really depends on what you mean. The speculated "first organisms" could hardly be called alive; certainly not if we don't consider viruses to be. Where, exactly, would you draw the line between a living organism, and a non-living one?
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
"because a man in a suit says it can't happen, doesn't mean he's right."
Except when that man in the suit is a evilutionist eh? And hes saying intelligent design cannot happen. Hypocrite, try taking your own damn advice, I know what real science is and evilution is not a science its a religion.
Of coarse the first organisms were alive, thats what organisms are. Chemicals are not alive organisms are. Difference is life, chemicals don't have life you noob.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Actually, no. An "evolutionist" still has to provide evidence, as well as a testable hypothesis that can be used in an experiment. If he fails to do so, nobody will take him seriously.
If you think the reason I doubt ID is because scientists told me to, you're quite mistaken. I doubt it because I doubt any unusual claim until shown evidence of its veracity. I don't believe in string hypothesis; they have no evidence as yet.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Evilution has already been long disproven as a possibility by mutations and natural selection that cannot occur within the dna. Yet hey keep pulling "evidence" out of their asses like you but never with any real facts to back it, only false presumptions based on a willful ignorance. So Actually, yes a evilutionist does have to provide evidence but its a already been proven a pseudo science so we already know there is no possible "evidence" for evilution.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
I think the problem is the word "organism." Yes, it's usually used to describe something that's alive, we don't exactly have a word for the product of abiogenesis. It would be a bit like a virus, but simpler.
See, here's the thing; a virus isn't alive. It does a lot of things that living things do, but it doesn't actually live. It is, essentially, a bunch of non-living chemicals.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Actually, yes we do have a word for the product of creation its called life, maybe you heard about it? Your not really that dense are you? Oh wait your a evilutionist.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
A bit like a virus?! lol. Viruses carry dna and rna, altho inert they become alive and they cannot make dna on their own they steal it. You must have a organism before you can have a virus. Besides it still must be created viruses or any such things components are irreducibily complex. Viruses are not chemicals they are dna or rna
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
They never become alive. Ever.
They don't steal dna. Viruses simply don't work that way.
Modern viruses ARE adapted for living with living organisms. I was giving you an example to explain to you that the first denizens need not be alive.
IC systems are possible in the evolutionary model via the elimination of redundancies, which shows that IC is not a testable prediction of ID.
Dna and Rna are both chemicals smartass.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Wrong again kid. Viruses invade the cells and rob them of their DNA. They are parasites, nothing more. You cannot have a virus that existed without first having a living cell as viruses can only replicate through a living organism, so yes they need to be alive. DNA is not a chemical its information, chemicals do not create information and RNA is just copied DNA. Chemicals cannot create life as I already stated life can ONLY come from other life, thus the whole ID.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
A. I'm 23.
B. That's not how viruses work. They don't steal dna, and they're very clearly nonliving. (Hint: Look up what living means.)
C. DNA and RNA are both chemicals which, via the order of the chemicals in their polymer, store information.
D. The cell is alive. The virus is not. If what you say were true, Aids wouldn't be the danger that it is.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
23 is a still a child, its your demeanor that gives that away not that adults are just as ignorant.
Yes, that is how viruses work. I didn't say they were living, I said the cell is living. Anyhow your little make believe scenerio about viruses creating life doesn't line up with reality nor does it explain where the viruses came from as chemicals cannot produce life.
B. DNA and RNA are not "chemicals" a chemical doesn't process and store information.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
A. Given your behavior throughout this conversation, do you really have the audacity to call me childish? Really?
B. You said that viruses become alive. No, they never do. Also, they never steal DNA.
C. Viruses aren't "creating life" in my scenario. What I was trying to explain to you is that the first "life" wouldn't actually be alive, like viruses, they'd be too simple to perform living processes. The "first life" would likely be random polymers of rna trapped inside of a fatty cont'd
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
A. Yes, its childish to be willfully ignorant, so yes. I was mostly referring to your demeanor as recognizable to that of a youth and not an adult. How and what you say its distinguishable from adult behavior.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
A. Rna isn't a chemical? You're calling ME ignorant?
B. Only a segment of gene actually makes it into the cell. If you're going to call the virus alive because of that, you'd have to say each chromosome is alive, which is clearly not true. The virus' gene doesn't perform any life functions, so it's not alive. The rest of the virus is just a discarded shell at this point, so that's not alive.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
B. Yes, again the virus is not alive but once they hijack the cell they are in that sense as the cell is no longer functioning as it was intended, they are restructured by the viruses. So in that sense the virus performs as a living organism. Viruses are parasites not chemicals.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
C. There is no such thing as life that is not alive. The first life as is all life, directly from God Himself, that is the only source of any and all life, is a eternal source. What I have been explaining to you is that your scenrio is not possible by the laws of physics. Viruses or chemicals like viruses, whatever you want to label it as cannot form together to create a cell, thats just a fact of science.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
C. That's why I put "life" in quotes. Technically, it's a mutating and self replicating chemical reaction, and can't yet be called life for lack of complexity. Not only is this VERY Possible through physics, it's also possible through chemistry. That's why I described the earliest critter for you, so you'd see how it would work. Apparently, you've failed to do so. In order to call it impossible, you'd have to deny hydrogen bonding. Seriously.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Mutations do not adquire additional information, they lose information. So being that mutations cannot be a factor for evilutionary processes, you must develop another source for your theory other than mutations. And no, its not possible through physics or chemistry. You can separate light too and blast it with radiation and split it and make it explode and yet it doesn't develop into living organisms.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Nylonase. By adding a nucleotide, and frame-shifting, a cell became capable of digesting nylon.
A single bit of information was added. None was lost.
Gene duplication adds information too, albeit to less effect.
You keep saying that it's impossible for a fatty acid bilayer membrane to contain a random string of RNA, and reproduce itself with variation in a convection current.
WHY is this impossible, then. Which rules does it break?
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Your theory is based on an assumption that because you mutate a chemical that somehow it can turn into a lifeform thats not science.
Uaz31 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Uaz31
That's not what I said.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight For one is that the systems are irriducibily complex meaning they could never have evolved from single parts to form a system they all have to come together at the same time and evilution doesn't allow for that to happen. Secondly, chemicals themselves lack the information to develop into anything. Without a directed source of information, namely God, those chemicals would never form into anything. Chemical reactions cannot produce living organisms.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
A. irreducibly complex systems could evolve via the elimination of redundancies.
B. Until you understand how the fatty acid bubble/rna polymer reaction can reproduce itself with variation in a convection current, I see little point in trying to educate you on the origin of information. Once you understand the reaction, THEN ask me how it could produce information.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
A. No, irreducibily complex systems could not evolve by redundancies. They would have to be completely redisigned with new information. Information which is not there and not being added except in your imagination.
B. The origin of information is God, not chemicals. Once you understand this concept then and only then will you get a real education. I can only educate you so much.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
A. Do you even know what I just said? Ok, I'll ask you to give me an example of an irreducibly complex structure that humans build that involves the elimination of a redundant system. Take your time.
B. In order for me to tell you what I think on the origin of information, I need to know that you've got the basics. Tell me you at least acknowledge that, if we had rna, and a fatty acid bubble, that it starts a self replicating reaction.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
A. Of coarse I know what you said, thats why I answered you. What is it you fail to comprehend this time? A irriducibily complex system could be illustrated by a mousetrap as it has. If you remove any of the parts it ceases to function as it was designed. Thats what it means. Manmade systems don't eliminate redundancies unless programmed to do so. Anything else I can educate you on?
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
A. Wrong, a mousetrap is not built via the elimination of redundancies. Try again.
We have built IC systems this way. Being an engineer, I can think of many. I just want you to give me one, because I don't think you know what I mean by a redundant system.
I have one right on the top of my head. I'll give you a hint: Masonry.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
I didn't say a mousetrap was. I was educating you on what irreducible complexity is as you don't seem to understand the concept. I know what a redundant system is but how your implying it in regards to irriducible complex systems is not accurate. Duplication is not adding or removing parts.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Oh, I know exactly what irreducibly complex means. How I'm applying it is PERFECTLY accurate in regards to irreducibly complex systems. I'm still waiting for that example.
Let me give you another hint: The secret to this structure was jealously guarded by stonemasons for centuries.
As to duplication, it implies that the second system is a duplicate, which is pointless, isn't it?
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
No, you don't understand what a irriducibily complex system is because if you did you would know that it cannot function without all its parts and duplication of the system doesn't account for its origin. So no your not accurately applying the concept.
Let me give you a hint, its like a mousetrap, you have the spring, the platform and bar. Now, without any of those you do not have a working mousetrap. You might find another function but the system ceases at thatpoint
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Lulzy. Cute. You think the only possible redundant system is a perfect duplicate.
Ok, it's clear you're not going to get it.
It's an archway. Archways are irreducibly complex. If you remove a brick, the whole thing collapses. So the question is, how was it made?
The answer is, you need a redundant system; a wooden frame. The redundant system is less efficient, and less complicated, perhaps even less irreducible.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
ha. Well, you can remove a brick without the archway collapsing, you just build a suport for the archway. Were talking about organic machines not a man made structure and there is no support for these machines while the rest evolves. .And no I wasn't thinking a perfect duplicate, that wouldn't make any sense not that you do anyhow.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
A. Yes, I know organisms aren't man-made. I just wanted you to know how redundant systems work, because without you knowing that, any argument I make will fall on deaf ears.
B. You mean we don't see any support right now. Take the lungs (thought I said this before.) They don't have support right now. You rip a persons lungs out of their chest, and they will die in minutes.
Now, what about a creature with lungs and gills? Removing its lungs certainly won't help it, but it'll (cont'd)
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@Uaz31 survive as long as it has water. Or, you can nix the gills, and it'll just have to breathe air. This is my point; if a creature starts off with one system, adds another, more complicated system, then takes the first away because it's not needed anymore, it'll leave people wondering how the second, very complex system, got there.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
B. Oh I very much have the "basics" the problem is you don't. Science doesn't work like you explain. Your skipping the whole development of the DNA, self replication doesn't account for its development or origin.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Yeah, I haven't gone into the development of dna yet, because the first replicating reaction would use RNA. DNA came significantly later, because it requires more proteins. The advantage to it is that it's far more stable, with a lower rate of mutation.
The reason why I put that off is I wanted to make sure you knew that the reaction I spoke of, with the fatty acid bubble and the rna segments, could replicate itself.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Yes, I understand what DNA is, what you don't seem to understand is that it cannot be created from chemical processes and random variations. Even mankind cannot assemble a dna from chemicals with all the technology we have. Its alot more complex than you want to believe it is.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
I know how complicated DNA is. That's why I said the earliest critters would use RNA. Several prokaryotes still do, matter of fact.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@Uaz31
fatty acid bubble that's caught in a convection current. (It's been demonstrated that the early earth atmosphere can, in the presence of water and an energy source, react to form fatty acids, amino acids, and rna and dna nucleotides.)
B. Yes they bloody well are chemicals. Do you want their chemical structure?
Information can be stored in nearly any format you can think of, even light itself.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
No, it has not been demonstrated that the early earth atmosphere can produce rna or dna or any of the compounds for life. Thats complete nonsense, I don't know where you got that from but its pure pseudo science. First of all nobody knows what the early earth atmosphere consisted of in the context of a millions of years old earth. God's word teaches us how it was created.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
A. Is not. Gravitation calculations combined with studies of other planets atmospheres show us how planetary atmosphere formation works. Our atmosphere started out rather like Venus', actually. This is backed up with considerable evidence, including red bed sedimentary deposits.
B. So you're saying that we should refuse to look at all of this evidence, and instead trust to a bronze age storybook that says the earth is flat, and is circled by the sun.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Secondly, DNA (RNA is just copied DNA, so I don't know why you keep mentioning them together) is the very component of life itself which contains all the information and DNA cannot be formed from chemical processes and random varations.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
I mention RNA because RNA can self-polymerize, which is important when there aren't any protein catalysts.
Not only are the enzymes that copy dna chemicals, but DNA is, itself, a chemical.
Also, it does have occasional random variations, as we can now observe directly. You can't say mutation doesn't exist anymore; we've seen it.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
The information must be directed by intelligence. What your suggesting is exactly like a computer being formed out in space by space dust. DNA is incredible complex its not a simple structure and its scientifically impossible for that information to develop by blind chance.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Computers don't form out of space dust via naturalistic processes. Information, in the case of dna, can. I'd be glad to explain that to you, but first you have to understand the basics. Can you acknowledge this much, that a fatty acid bubble could form with random strings of RNA trapped inside, given the presence of both fatty acids and Rna?
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
B. What I was implying is that they are not chemicals in the sense you are implying. DNA is not just a bunch of chemicals its the information for the cell. Our whole bodies are made up of chemicals.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Thank you for at least conceding that it is made of chemicals. We're making progress.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
You cannot just put a bunch of chemicals together tho and create a living cell, it doesn't work that way. Yes light is a great example for stored information. God Himself is a light, in the beginning their was light. Light is energy and energy can become matter it is also the carrier of information.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
No, that's not how abiogenesis works. I said that. Fatty acid bubble with bits of rna trapped inside =/= living cell.
There isn't stored information in all light; I was merely pointing out that you can store information in ANY medium. In other words, the fact that it's chemicals doesn't matter, it can still store info.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Your problem is that your confusing life with chemicals. You can have all the chemicals in the Universe and their never going to organize themselves into a living organism. Bleach is a chemical, there is no DNA in bleach. Why? Because it has no life. DNA is life . NAme one chemical that has DNA in it, hint -blood is not a chemical.
Yes the cell is alive, good. Virus is not yes, but virus in cell is alive as cell is not what it once was, it is product of virus, alive
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
The reason why there's no dna in bleach is because it's got the wrong chemicals in it. Nitrogen, chlorine, and oxygen can't be formed into dna because that's not what dna is made of.
Blood is made of chemicals too. In fact, without the polydentate ligand hemoglobin, blood would be absolutely useless.
The virus is using the living cell, but that doesn't mean the virus is alive. In order to say the virus is alive, in that sense, you'd also have to say each chromosome is alive.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
I was implying that chemicals by themselves lack the ability to form any kind of dna. You can take all the right chemicals and they will never form DNA by themselves. Take a cell and split it open, shake up the test tube, maybe hit it with lightning it will never reform its components. These systems were designed, that is obvious and that is what real science shows us, not your pseudo science of evilution.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen. Mix these chemicals in the presence of an energy source, and you will get rna and dna nucleotides, fatty acids, and various amino acids. This has been done in controlled experiments MANY TIMES.
A cell is an extremely complex organism. If you did that to a fatty acid bubble with RNA inside, it could very easily reform itself.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
hahah. Water. ya and whats in water? all the components you mentioned. The dna would have to come from the water, which was already there. And no its never been done before forming DNA. Nucleotides?! Thats not DNA. All your making in your experiement is chemicals not DNA. Man, you been watching too many frankenstien movies.
You cant duplicate life from chemicals. Life is Gods' and Gods' alone. Best one could do is make synthetic cells but never near as complex.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
"Whats in water" is just water; not ammonia, not carbon dioxide, not hydrogen gas. The atmosphere is no longer reducing, it no longer contains significant amounts of ammonia and hydrogen gas, which is why this must be done in a controlled environment. Where it has been done. Many times.
Nucleotides, bonded together, are dna. That's what dna is. Dna is a string of nucleotides.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Yes, but nucleotides are not DNA until bonded and bonded to in a INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED ORDER. Which random variation cannot do. "The atmosphere is no longer reducing"?! Nobody knows what the early atmosphere was in the context of a millions of years old Earth or that it has been reducing those compounds throughout time. Your making assumptions and calling them facts thats not science.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
A. Actually, no, any polymer of dna nucleotides is considered to be "dna," whether it's expressed as a gene, or not.
B. Doesn't matter anyway, because we haven't gotten to DNA yet. I've only told you about RNA.
C. Do you even know what I mean by reducing? Yes, we know the early earth atmosphere was reducing. Red bed sedimentary deposits, remember?
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
A. Actually no, a nucleotide is not considered to be dna, anymore than a amino acid is considered to be a elephant.
B. I already know about DNA and RNA.
C. No we don't know the early earth was reducing. Were you there? no. There has been many speculations but the truth is the earth is not millions of years old but thousands. The atmosphere was different yes, it would of had to be but exactly how much different we do not know, altho it was always breathable air.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
A. Yeah, try re-reading that sport.
B. Oh really?
So how do "evilutionists" think dna storage of information evolved? You tell me what they say, if you're such a smart guy.
C. No, but a lot of iron particles WERE there. In an oxidizing atmosphere, they'd rust, leaving red bands in the rock called "red beds." These layers are absent from precambrian rock, showing clearly that the atmosphere wasn't oxidizing.
Or do you have a problem now with basic chemistry?
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
A. No reason to re-read anything.
B. I could care less what evilutionists believe, except when they try to pass off their imaginations as facts.
C. Not necessarily, your assuming that the precambrian rock is millions of years old. Its circular reasoning. I have no problems with chemistry I like science.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
A. Of course not. That would involve realizing your mistake.
B. Yeah, it's clear to me you weren't truthful when you claimed to know what I was going to tell you about dna and rna.
C. First of all, that's not circular reasoning. Secondly, what you MEANT to accuse it of being was an argument with a faulty premise. We know that the rock is millions of years old because of radiometric dating.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
I never claimed to know what you were going to say. Interesting how you feel the need to put words in my mouth. I said I already know what DNA and RNA are
C. First of all yes, it is circular reasoning because your basing the hypothesis on a hypothesis, thats what we call circular reasoning. Just like they do with fossils and strata layer to date them. They try and date the fossil by the layers and the layers by the fossils.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
And used in response to what I said, that you knew what I was going to say is implied.
C. That's not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning means, quite literally, that your reasoning becomes a circle. Example: Claim A is true because claim B is true. Claim B is true because claim A is true. It forms a circle.
Actually, they date the strata these days with radiometric dating, since if it doesn't work, everything we know about nuclear physics is wrong.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Radiometric dating is not accurate past known history being approximately 3,000 B.C. Even within known history its not a reliable, its not really being used as much for dating because of the inaccuracies. When dating back that far you have to assume that their hasn't been any changes in millions of years.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
What the hell are you talking about? I just explained to you how we know that each of these methods is reliable. In order for them to not work, physics itself would roll over and die. Just to check if this is true, we've chained each of these to the next, and confirmed them with independent dating methods. I mean, hell, even dendrochronology reaches to 20,000 bc, and ice cores go back five times as far!
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
But its all circular reasoning. They base the dates on a presumption, the preconceived notion that its millions of years old, in part because of the radiometric dating. So no they only go back as far as they want to believe they do. Its interesting to note that we also know the date of Noah's flood being 4,990 B.C. which is almost exactly 7,000 years from now, 2011 to be exact. If only they would date those cores on that timescale we would have more accuracy.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
No. It's like you're not listening to me at all.
They base the dates on the ratio of a radioactive isotope to its daughter products using laboratory determined rates of decay.
Ice cores, by the way, give us accurate dating to the year since their accumulation.
... You're not seriously a YEC, are you? Goodness me. So many questions.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Yes, I know how they date using radiometric daing. But, like I said they presume that those rates have not changed over many thousands and even millions of years thats pseudo science.
Ice cores do not give accurate dates unless your timescale that you measure those dates on is correct. And like the radiometric dating they assume that nothing has changed in millions of years. After a few thousand years none of it is really reliable as being accurate.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
A. Yeah, remember the bit about physics rolling over to die? That's what would happen if those rates changed. Making the assumption that physics stopped working, regardless of the fact that radiometric dating is confirmed through independent methods, is pseudoscience.
B. Ice cores give us dating to the year because of how ice cores are formed.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
And yes, Im a young Earth creationist, only not the 6,000 year old earth creationist. Thats not what the Bible teaches. The flood was 7,000 years ago and creation was 11,013 B.C. 13,000 years to 1988. Those are very accurate dates based on a careful study of the Bibles geneologies.
This is a creationist video, why would you be surprised that a creationist is watching it?
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
A. Oh yeah? Which genealogy, matt's, or luke's?
B. Yeah, the ID theorists would be very, very, very upset to have their theory called "creationism." Read up on the wedge document and the dover trial.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
A. Neither. The geneologies in Genesis 5 and 11 chapters start from Adam and Eve. Thats why its possible given other information about the timeline that we can date creation itself.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
They start with Adam and eve, eh?
Ok, there seems to be some confusion. I figured you were basing the genealogy dates off of Jesus' birth (0 AD). Tell me, then, what date you use to pin this whole thing down?
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Well actually we have the right dates for Jesus's birth too. He was not born 0 A.D. there is no year 0 when you go from bc to ad it just skips 0. But ya Jesus was born in 7 B.C. and was crucified in 33 A.D. He was 38 years old almost 39.
Its a very detailed study and goes through alot of kings and pharohs of eygpt even. All based on what the Bible mentions to arrive at specific dates. The Jews were very good at keeping records.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
October 1, st 7 B.C. was JEsus born. That is the real "christmas day"
Uaz31 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Its also interesting to note that the ice cores have irregularities at their approximately -7,000 or 8,000 year range they probably claim due to something else. But in reality thats when most of the ice formed.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Yeah, only that's contradicted by the evidence. It doesn't explain the annual bands, it doesn't explain explain the changes in conductivity between layers, and it certainly doesn't explain the CO2 pattern.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
As to the irregularities you mention, I've never heard of them. A source would be appreciated.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@Uaz31
As to the K-Ar dating used for that rock, it's confirmed both through basic nuclear physics, and rubidium strontium dating. Rubidium strontium is likewise confirmed through nuclear physics, and is in agreement with Uranium Thorium methods. Uranium thorium is confirmed through nuclear physics, and radiocarbon. Radiocarbon is confirmed through nuclear physics, dendrochronology, ice core samples, and more.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
So its all guesswork, but we already know how old the Earth is its 13,000 years old. This info is from a recent study of the Bibical timeline of history based on the geneologies of Genesis 5 and 11. Lengthy but if your ever interested you can find the work at familyradio dott comm under online literature, "adam when?"
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
You've got to be kidding me.
Are you trolling me? Ooh, you got me good.
Damn poe's law. You were so convincing too, up till you tried telling me you were a young earth creationist.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Trolling you? No. Its more likely your trolling me. I don't stalk people and if I did it would be a beautiful girly who adored the God of the Bible as much as I do.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
1. How is it that we can see stars greater than 20,000 light years away?
2. How is it that the sun seems to be, from the ratio of hydrogen to helium, about 4 billion years old? Did god throw in the extra helium "as a test?"
3. How do you explain geological strata? (Don't say flood. Floods don't work like that.)
4. How do you explain shared endogenous retroviral insertion points?
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
5. If your claim is that god is testing us with all this evidence that supports evolution, has it yet occurred to you that god might have created the universe, knowing that we'd evolve naturally, then placed amongst us a book of pure deception, just to test our rationality?
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Within known history, radiometric dating has serious issues too, altho it is closely accurate at times. Its accuracy has been tested thru the years, recently rock from Mt saint Helens was tested to be millions of years old but it was recently formed in the 1980 eruption.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
No it wasn't. I know that test.
The lava had bits of old rock in it. Scientists wanted to determine what effect the lava would have on this rock, or what effect the rock would have on the lava. The rock formed by the lava tested out just fine, modern rock. The rock that tested to be millions of years old, genuinely was.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
No, that wasn't the same test. These samples were taken in by people diliberately testing the accuracies of the method. But thats only one example, radiometric dating has been very much inaccurate on a many number of times. And not just by a little but thousands and like the lava rock millions of years.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Yes, they were testing the accuracy of the method... by testing the effect of older rock on younger, and vice versa. It's a study commonly cited by creationists who misunderstood the gist of the test, thinking it disproved carbon dating.
I'm well aware of the factors that throw off carbon dating, as are scientists. That's why carbon dating is never used in certain circumstances. (Example: it can't be used to date many forms of aquatic life.)
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Nah, it wasn't to disprove carbon dating. Carbon dating is fairly accurate WITHIN KNOWN HISTORY. Carbon dating past that is not accurate nor can it be claimed to be so. Thats just not something that can be said is factual. They do those random tests to show how its not accurate when scaled past known history.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
It's very much accurate, so long as you don't do something stupid with it (like testing an organism that doesn't get its carbon from the atmosphere, for example.)
I wish to hear more of these tests. It may be that they, like the one you discussed earlier, were merely determining the effect of various factors on radiometric dating.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Probably in part, but they were creationists, it was also a diliberate testing of the accuracy of the methods when they had it tested. They tested 2 rocks at the same time as I recall. They knew they might be identified as creationists. I think the other one was from some rock in Japan or something. To throw them off their track lol.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
I'm somewhat skeptical that they were creationists, given the lack of creationists in the scientific community, but if you'd find me a link to their study...
Actually, if you're right about how they did that test, you might very well be right about them being creationists. Only a creationist would leave so many variables.
Tested only two rocks with one of the rocks not even coming from that area?
So much could go wrong with such a poorly designed test.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
What? There are plenty of creationist in the scientific community. Not all believe in the Bibical account but they agree with intelligent design. I don't recall specifically I think that was from the ICR site, ill try to find it. What about Bibical archeology? Those are geologists and their all creationists. Its a growing field, very interesting to find items from Bibical times that varify the authenticity of the Bibical account.
Uaz31 1 year ago
Comment removed
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31 Bibical archeology review magazine online. Good stuff. and its all "peer reviewed" haha
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
They all seem to be historians to me, rather than scientists. It seems their magazine examines history over the past 2,000 years as it relates to the bible. I only glanced at it, but I didn't really see anything having to do with anything older than Jesus.
I'm not terribly fond of middle eastern history, so it doesn't interest me much. They do list "busting the DaVinci code" as a very factual book, which I thought was... unusual.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Ya well there all on the 6000 year old creation date too. But the findings are exciting when they relate to actual events in the Bible.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Anyway, how do you reconcile your belief that the world is less than 20,000 years old with the fact that we can see stars over 20,000 light years away? (We can determine this distance via parallax trigonometry.)
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Well because the light would have already been here, that it didn't need to travel to orginally be here. He said let there be light not ok, now im going to wait a few trillion years for all that light to get here. And He created the very physics of the Universe anyhow, whos to say He can't bring that light here instantly.
And when you think about how He is outside of time, space and matter, it makes a bit more sense.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Ok, so you're saying he set the light in position 20k light years away, so it only LOOKS like the light has been traveling hundreds of thousands of years to get here, because he created a universe in which there is a constant velocity of light. I suppose you likewise say he also adjusted the sun's helium content so it only SEEMS to be four billion years old, and seeded enough radioactive daughter products that the earth seems to be older than it is, and he must've fabricated (cont'd)
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
No, not saying that. The light is traveling here but when the Universe was created, when God set all in motion that the light was already here to begin with that originally it didn't have to travel to get here because God brought it here. It doesn't make sense to us from our perspective but were not God. God is not bound by the laws of the Universe. Imagine if there were no time and no space and light was infinite well it wouldnt need to travel would it?
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Yeah, that's what I said. You're saying god evidently took the light from these stars, and set it in position so that when it got here, it only looks like it had been travelling for a long time.
Out of curiosity, if "we're not god," why do you have so much faith in the bible? How do you know the guys who wrote it got it right? After all, they're not god...
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight "How do you know the guys who wrote it got it right?"
Its not because of what they wrote down, its because of what God gave them to write down. I know it is the very word of God, for several reasons. One is prophecy but mostly its because I recognize the truths spoken in it. Those men were men of God. You'd think if they were trying to make up some story that were not true they would not have gave account of all the misery, such as Christ being spit on and crucified.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
So you'd rather trust a book, which was written and interpreted by man, than the universe that you believe god himself made. Interesting.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Im not God I don't know how He did it but I know He did it. I rest on the fact that He is greater than this entire Universe having created it all.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
And why do you know that he did it? Because a book says so?
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@Uaz31 every tree ring older than 13k or however many years old you say the earth is... He did all of these deceptive things, in order to make the universe appear much older than it is... what, to test our faith in a single book written millenia ago by people who hadn't yet figured out that the earth was spherical, who hadn't even figured out irrigation?
Tell me, is it not possible then that such a god is testing our rationality, NOT our faith?
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Well the trees would have grew at a faster rate earlier in time, they too were subject to the curse of man's sin, so the rings were more plenty then. Before the flood it must have been like jurassic park everywhere, with higher oxygen content in the air as well making the plants and animals much larger and longer lifespans too. You said yourself that the atmosphere was receeding, I think so too but from a much more plentyful one.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
I believe Heisbrining judgement on thisworld as a result of our own sin.I have a problem with the whole "testing"concept.I believe it would be better to say He trys us, or proves us rather. Its a judgement onsome and a blessing on others.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Yeah, I had a feeling. Thing is, you missed the point of that question.
How do you know he's judging our sins?
How do you know he's not judging our ignorance?
Maybe he WANTS to see if we can make deductions off the universe around us, rather than a very old book.
In fact, here's another thought experiment.
If god created the universe, and man wrote the bibe,
which are you going to believe if they contradict each other, the bible, or the universe?
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Actually, I said it was reducing. That means "got lots of hydrogen in it."
Yeah, if trees grew faster, it wouldn't mean "more rings," it would mean "more space between rings."
Higher oxygen levels in the past is flatly contradicted by red bed sedimentary deposits.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Actually reducing means to reduce not "got lots of hydrogen in it" and thats pure speculation not based on any evidence for the fact.
No, it would only mean more rings in todays atmosphere. But yes, more rings and more space between the rings as well.
As far as the red beds go, thats not evidence for a reducing atmosphere in the least.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Good grief. Look up oxidation and reduction reactions.
The rings would still be annual. There would only be more space between the rings if it "grew faster."
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
First, the banded iron is not direct evidence of a reducing atmosphere; it only suggests that an earlier reducing atmosphere may have existed. Other options are certainly possible. The iron formations contain oxidized iron and would require an oxidizing atmosphere or other abundant source of oxygen!
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Oh? This should be interesting.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
A second problem is that the iron formations do not record a simultaneous, worldwide precipitation event, but are known to occur in older strata when the atmosphere was supposed to be reducing and in younger strata when the atmosphere was undoubtedly oxidizing.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
The problem is that we don't have a ton of samples from that time that haven't been metamorphosed. All we know is, samples older than 2.5 billion years don't have it, samples younger do.
I see absolutely no problem with them saying that they've found 2.3 billion year old samples that show the presence of oxygen. This comes a bit after the proposed atmospheric transition, and I'm surprised Dimroth and Kimberly didn't know that.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Dimroth and Kimberley compare Archean iron formations (believed to have been deposited at the same time as unstable metallic mineral placers more than 2.3 billion years ago) with Paleozoic iron formations (believed to have been deposited in an oxidizing atmosphere less than 0.6 billion years ago). The similarities can be used to argue that the Archean atmosphere was oxidizing.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
A third problem is that red, sandy, sedimentary rocks called "red beds" are found in association with banded iron formations. The red color in the rock is imparted by the fully oxidized iron mineral hematite, and the rocks are characteristically deficient in unoxidized or partly oxidized iron minerals (e.g., pyrite and magnetite).
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31 Yes, that is what a red bed is. (How is this a problem?) If you're suggesting that rust seeps down through the sedimentary rock, that would make the red bed appear to be older, not younger.)
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Not suggesting rust seeps down altho thats certainly likely. Why would you think it would make it appear older? Specifically millions of years old or billions whatever it is now.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight Because magnetite would be more stable in an atmosphere with lower oxygen pressure, some evolutionists have argued that banded iron accumulated during the transition from a reducing to a fully oxidizing atmosphere some 1.9 billion years ago. Soluble ferrous iron abundant in the early reducing sea, they suppose, was precipitated as oxygen produced the insoluble, ferric iron of the modern oxidizing sea.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
well...
When sulfur combines with metals under reducing conditions the result is sulfide minerals such as pyrite (FeS2), galena (PbS), and sphalerite (ZnS). When sulfur combines with metals under oxidizing conditions the result is sulfate minerals such as barite (BaSO4), celestite (SrSO4), anhydrite (CaSO4), and gypsum (CaSO42H2O). If the earth had a reducing atmosphere, we might expect extensive stratified, sulfide precipitates in Archean sedimentary rocks.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
These would not have formed by volcanic-exhalative processes (as some sulfide minerals do even today), but directly from sea water (impossible in our modern oxidizing ocean). No deposits of this type have been found. Instead, Archean bedded sulfate has been reported from western Australia, South Africa, and southern India.11 Barite appears to have replaced gypsum which was the original mineral deposited as a chemical precipitate.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
This provides evidence of ancient oxidizing surface conditions and oxidizing ground water. The extent of the oxidizing sulfate environment and its relation to ancient atmospheric composition are speculation, but, again we see evidence of Archean oxygen.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Mineralogy and Petrology
Volume 64, Numbers 1-4 / March, 1998
Pages 219-235
Sulphide minerals in early Archean chemical sedimentary rocks of the eastern Pilbara district, Western Australia
There ya go. Deposited from the ocean, in the Archean. I agreed with you that the atmospheric conditions changed in the Archean. If that is true, logically, we will find evidence of time periods with a reducing atm, and times with an oxidizing one.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Oh wow, what a hypocrite, you pasted and copied information from the web. Oh no wait that all comes from your superiour intellect right? lol.
I think its much more likely that their was not a "reducing atmosphere" at all. I think it was more a receeding atmosphere of oxygen content. Not so much hygrogen, as this world did not form from a gas cloud. It was formed fully able to support human life from the very start and it was much more plentyful.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Most of my arguments do come straight from my memory, that's why when you google my posts, you'll never find those exact words on any site. On occasion, when you challenge me for evidence, I tell you where to find it. That's not copypasta.
Frankly, it doesn't matter what you think is more likely. It's evidence that counts.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
also...
When a rock fragment is deposited, its surface is in contact with the external environment and can be altered chemically. Thus, pebbles and lava flows in the modern atmosphere weather to form oxide minerals at their surfaces.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Even in the ocean this weathering occurs. In a similar fashion, Dimroth and Kimberley report oxidative weathering of pebbles occurring below a banded iron formation and describe hematite weathering crusts on Archean pillow basalt (believed to represent a submarine lava flow). Again, Archean oxygen is indicated.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Again, the atmosphere changed during the Archean, so it's hardly a surprise that you found oxygen in the mid and upper strata.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Yes, change thats a result of the flood waters, that would be a big change.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Red beds are known to occur below one of the world's largest Proterozoic iron formations and have been reported in Archean and lower Proterozoic rocks. By their association with iron formations, red beds also indicate oxidizing conditions.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Again, no problem with them finding red beds in the archean.
Speaking of old rocks, they DID find organic carbon in the greenland sample of hadean rock (which, by the way, had UNoxidized iron deposits,) which seems to imply not only was the atmosphere anoxic at this time, but that there was some sort of "life".
Neat, huh?
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight Water-concentrated, unstable metallic minerals are not diagnostic of reducing conditions. The many mineral forms of ferrous and ferric iron in Archean and lower Proterozoic rocks are most suggestive of oxygen-rich conditions. Sulfate in the oldest rocks indicates oxygen in the water.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
There is no sulfate in the oldest rocks. Are you talking about the Greenland hadean samples?
Those don't have sulfate. They do, however, have unoxidized iron bands...
By the way, if the change happened in the archean, then it goes without saying that you'd find it in the proterozoic, doesn't it? The proterozoic happened AFTER the archean. You'd find red beds in the late proterozoic too, and the phanerozoic.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Not neccessarily, because your assuming again that their was some kind of constant. The flood waters are obviously a result of upper layers of sediment. Again, it is evidence for a rich atmosphere of oxygen before the flood as I insisted. This explains the larger plants and animals as well. Why we find dragonfly fossils with 3 foot wingspans. Did you know farmers use high oxygen levels to create gigantic veggies and fruit? They probably lived longer too, obviously
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Also I refer you to the coal layers which are also evience for a flood as well. Aside from all that there is the soft tissue with red blood cells found from a T Rex fossil. Actually on 3 separate occasions. Noahs ark has recently been publically announced as being discovered on Mt Ararat, the exodus evidence as well as the real mt Sinai location and evidence has been unearthed. You really have no more reason to deny that, yes, God did it just as the Bible indicates. No more excuses
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
1. The "T-Rex tissue" didn't actually contain any cells whatsoever, and was, in fact, just a couple of protiens that we're not sure came from a T-rex. It would be fascinating if it turned out to be truly a dino protein, but it doesn't demonstrate that a flood occurred.
2. As I recall, that was a mud flow. Not a ship. They found several others just like it.
3. I grow weary of your imbecility. I challenge you to actually re-read my posts and comprehend what they mean.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Thats not true, bone, remenants of what could only be red blood cells and other soft tissue was indeed found within the fossilized bone. This is clear evidence that dinosaurs could not have died out more than a few thousand years ago. 7,000 years to be exact. So yes, it does give credance to the flood story as you need rapid burial and yes, water for fossilization and that doesn't take millions of years. Fossilization can happen in only a few years given the right cond.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
1. Yeah, I was going from memory from another find. This must be a new one. I'll concede that they found what appears to be a couple of cells, even though they themselves said they weren't sure if it was actually a Trex cell.
2. Not really, no. The fact that the cells haven't decomposed was very, very, VERY lucky, but not proof of a young earth.
3. When that sort of fossilization happens, you can tell by the solubility of the fossil minerals.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
Also the T-rex find was only one of 3 findings all showing simular results of soft tissue and yes, bone. The most recent was in 2009. Its obvious this could only be from the animal itself, but of coarse the evilutionists would believe anything but the idea for the sake of their own religion.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Um. Actually, if it actually came from the Trex, it wouldn't disprove evolution. At all.
It's neat, I just don't want to get my hopes up.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
2. eh, no. Your thinking of the site below the mountain. This is on the top of the mountain. Its been documented as being seem by several people over the years but this is the first time its been video taped and explored more throughly. More expeditions will no doubt be done. 7 rooms were found half buried in volcanic rock and ice and trap door to a second floor which was not opened. Its at the top of the mountain not the bottom. That bottom site was a old house or like.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Yeah, I was thinking of the older version of the Ark site. This one is apparently a few rooms that they decided was an ark. It'll be interesting to see what happens when they've fully explored it, won't it? I wonder what they'd say if they found more rooms, but not in the general shape of an ark.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@Uaz31
By the way, the site I was referring to was not an old house. It was a mud flow. The difference is that one has mud, the other has wood.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@Uaz31
Increasing the oxygen content does not make things grow bigger.
Let me guess: Hovind lectures?
First of all, no. Farmers can't control the atmosphere of their crops, much though they'd like to.
In the hovind lecture, he was actually talking about a japanese fella that managed to grow the world's largest tomato plant. What hovind neglected to point out was that he was not, in fact, using increased oxygen, but was growing hydroponically. Growing vine plants hydroponically makes them big.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight
An evolutionist can maintain that a reducing atmosphere existed before any rocks available for study formed, but such a belief is simply a matter of faith. The statement of Walker is true, "The strongest evidence is provided by conditions for the origin of life. A reducing atmosphere is required."13 The proof of evolution rests squarely on the assumption of evolution!
Uaz31 1 year ago