[_ Old Earth _] How did life come to be?

[coelacanth]

gotta love the Princess Bride

 

[RND]

On the evidence front, perhaps this is a good place to start:

http://hazen.ciw.edu/research/origins

A guess.

 

[RND]

gotta love the Princess Bride

I'm glad for you! The fact is that there is -zero- evidence to support your fairy tale.

 

[coelacanth]

Why the laughing? You are making no sense.

Because your hypothesis is nonsense.

It's no fairy tale if you understand how evolution works, which I sincerely doubt that you do.

I understand how evolutionist "think" they understand how evolution works. The fact of the matter is that evolution only works with phenotype and not genotype should give you a clue about the probability of chance your fairy tale is built on! :rolling

The nonsense spews forth from your direction. Sorry but it's true. Your mindless little drivel about phenotype and genotype show a vague understanding at best. Evolution is a fact, and the theory behind it is just simple enough that people like you think they understand it and question it. It's about as intelligent as questioning the heliocentric theory of our solar system. The origin I speak of is a hypothesis, a postulate if you will, because there is no reason to believe in the supernatural, and parsimony leads me to seek natural causes.

Edit: Theories should be questioned, but not declared wrong unless some evidence disproves them

Your little laughing smilies only make you look silly; I'd stop them until you have an actual reason to use them.

 

[Barbarian]

I understand how evolutionist "think" they understand how evolution works.

Let's test that assumption. Tell us the basic ideas of Darwin with regard to evolution, and then how those ideas were modified in the New Synthesis to produce modern evolutionary theory. Extra credit for mentioning how Gould and Kimura further modified the theory.

The fact of the matter is that evolution only works with phenotype and not genotype should give you a clue about the probability of chance your fairy tale is built on!

Tell us how it works "only with the phenotype."

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

 

[lordkalvan]

Is the earth 6,000 years old?

There or about.

An understanding readily discounted by a variety of evidence from multiple fields of research, including geology, astronomy, history, archaeology, palaeontology, botany and biology.

 

[Orion]

Is the earth 6,000 years old?

There or about.

An understanding readily discounted by a variety of evidence from multiple fields of research, including geology, astronomy, history, archaeology, palaeontology, botany and biology.

^ Exactly. In the time we live, . . . how anyone could ever think that the earth was created ~6,000 years ago . . . . it REALLY destroys their credibility.

 

[RND]

The nonsense spews forth from your direction. Sorry but it's true. Your mindless little drivel about phenotype and genotype show a vague understanding at best.

Ah, reaching low for your argumentation now? Mindless? Name calling shows just how devoid your argument are of any credibility. Look, this is very simple. Evolutionist can only address and attempt to explain their positions from the status of the phenotype because they cannot adequately explain genotype. The chance probability of abiogenesis is remarkable in just how improbable it is! That's a fairy tale!

Evolution is a fact, and the theory behind it is just simple enough that people like you think they understand it and question it.

Evolution is not a fact and at best simple denotes change in species and not new and separate species coming from other species.

Also, if you can, show me specifically how DNA can evolve to create completely different species.

It's about as intelligent as questioning the heliocentric theory of our solar system.

Which of course was first taught in the book of Job long time before it was "discovered" by man.

The origin I speak of is a hypothesis, a postulate if you will, because there is no reason to believe in the supernatural, and parsimony leads me to seek natural causes.

Which is just a fancy way of saying you too belief in a fairy tale!

Edit: Theories should be questioned, but not declared wrong unless some evidence disproves them

Question. What evidence have you presented that conclusive proves that various species evolved from one initial life form on earth? None.

Your little laughing smilies only make you look silly; I'd stop them until you have an actual reason to use them.

Thanks for your concern. I'll take that under advisement. What I would hope that you would be honest enough to admit is that you have -zero- concrete evidence that life "just happened" on earth to where other lifeforms derived.

For example, we are commonly told and led to believe that fish grew legs, left the water and walked on the earth. Yet there is -zero- evidence, especially from genotype evidence, to support such a wild claim. The question I would simply ask is what evidence do you have that DNA itself evolved?

 

[RND]

Is the earth 6,000 years old?

There or about.

An understanding readily discounted by a variety of evidence from multiple fields of research, including geology, astronomy, history, archaeology, palaeontology, botany and biology.

How do explain the Polonium radioisotopes with an incredibly short life span found in certain granites throughout the earth that demonstrate clearly that these granites are months old, not billions of years old?

 

[RND]

^ Exactly. In the time we live, . . . how anyone could ever think that the earth was created ~6,000 years ago . . . .

Easy. Faith. Belief in the Bible record.

it REALLY destroys their credibility.

As does believing your fair tale and dismissal of God's word does yours.

 

[Orion]

^ Exactly. In the time we live, . . . how anyone could ever think that the earth was created ~6,000 years ago . . . .

Easy. Faith. Belief in the Bible record.

it REALLY destroys their credibility.

As does believing your fair tale and dismissal of God's word does yours.

I don't necessarily believe in all that evolution states. But answer this for me [about the other thing you mentioned on the ~6,000 year old earth]. Do you really believe that God "gave an appearance of age" to the universe? If so, why? If he did, why would he create an untruth? Isn't an untruth paramount to lying?

 

[Crying Rock]

Perhaps the answer resides within the concepts of time contraction and dilation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

 

[RND]

I don't necessarily believe in all that evolution states.

What parts do you believe in? What don't you believe?

But answer this for me [about the other thing you mentioned on the ~6,000 year old earth]. Do you really believe that God "gave an appearance of age" to the universe?

That's an interesting question in that to answer it we must consider that since God is outside of the dimension of time He created time for our benefit, not His. Thus I would left to say no.

Gen 1:14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

The lights in the firmament of heaven were for the benefit of mankind and not God. The "appearance of age" you mention would then be something man invented because man is subject to the dimension of time.

Scientist have now begun to postulate that the same quark can and indeed does appear in two different places at one time. Man is so far from having a firm grasp and understanding of quantum physics it's frightening!

If so, why?

The dimension of time is only relevant to man - here on earth. Time as we know it on earth may be completely different on another planet in another galaxy.

If he did, why would he create an untruth?

I imagine this question would be related to perception. How do you perceive of something you don't have all the answers to as being an untruth? I don't have all the in's and out's of sunlight and how it is made but that doesn't mean sunlight is untrue.

Isn't an untruth paramount to lying?

How did God in the creation of the heavens and earth lie? Just because you don't completely understand the mechanisms involved in the creation of matter (neither do I) is not to say God is lying. More likely is that we cannot understand His ways.

 

[RND]

Perhaps the answer resides within the concepts of time contraction and dilation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

That's actually very good.

 

[Orion]

How did God in the creation of the heavens and earth lie? Just because you don't completely understand the mechanisms involved in the creation of matter (neither do I) is not to say God is lying. More likely is that we cannot understand His ways.

I decided to limit to this....

Since neither of us knows what possible mechanisms there could be present, that we are unaware of, then we are left to speculation. . . . albeit, interesting speculation.

Okay, so when we have [for example] the remnant of a supernova, ~ a million light years away, what would be your comment to this. In OUR world, which includes linear time, the light from this supernova took that ~ million light years to reach our planet. While I would never be arrogant enough to state that we know all there is about the process of how light works, nor other effects upon it, as it stands now, the "untruth" I spoke of would be that there would have been [again, barring these things unknown] an "untruth" of sorts in that the creation of "the stars" would have included the remnant of an exploded star. . . . that never did. That's why I brought it up.

Again, if we have to get into theoretical physics, then I think most of us on this forum will be a little out of our league.

Have a good weekend, everyone!

 

[RND]

I decided to limit to this....

Since neither of us knows what possible mechanisms there could be present, that we are unaware of, then we are left to speculation. . . . albeit, interesting speculation.

I think I should qualify my statement a bit. While we cannot understand the mechanisms of creation, specifically, how God could "speak" things into existence we can to a large extent understand the very building blocks He used. I don't know that I made that clear in my first statement.

Okay, so when we have [for example] the remnant of a supernova, ~ a million light years away, what would be your comment to this. In OUR world, which includes linear time, the light from this supernova took that ~ million light years to reach our planet. While I would never be arrogant enough to state that we know all there is about the process of how light works, nor other effects upon it, as it stands now, the "untruth" I spoke of would be that there would have been [again, barring these things unknown] an "untruth" of sorts in that the creation of "the stars" would have included the remnant of an exploded star. . . . that never did. That's why I brought it up.

Again, scientist's are discovering that quarks are able to actually be in two places at one time as I mentioned previously. I honestly can't say how God may have caused light from a million light years away to be visible to our eye and in our time/space continuum but I think we can say, fom a physics standpoint, that it is possible.

Again, if we have to get into theoretical physics, then I think most of us on this forum will be a little out of our league.

You aren't kidding!

Have a good weekend, everyone!

Shabbat Shalom!

 

[lordkalvan]

An understanding readily discounted by a variety of evidence from multiple fields of research, including geology, astronomy, history, archaeology, palaeontology, botany and biology.

How do explain the Polonium radioisotopes with an incredibly short life span found in certain granites throughout the earth that demonstrate clearly that these granites are months old, not billions of years old?

Citation and references for this rather surprising assertion ('months old'?), please. Without these details all I can suggest is that the original source for this statement is either mistaken or misleading.

 

[RND]

An understanding readily discounted by a variety of evidence from multiple fields of research, including geology, astronomy, history, archaeology, palaeontology, botany and biology.

How do explain the Polonium radioisotopes with an incredibly short life span found in certain granites throughout the earth that demonstrate clearly that these granites are months old, not billions of years old?

Citation and references for this rather surprising assertion ('months old'?), please. Without these details all I can suggest is that the original source for this statement is either mistaken or misleading.

Here ya go: http://www.halos.com/reports/ex-nihilo- ... eation.htm

 

[Barbarian]

Most creationists have abandoned this one. Research on Gentry's halos can be found here:

When I looked closely into Gentry's Po halo studies, I noted four odd circumstantial facts contrary to his hypothesis. The first oddity is that his Po halos all occurred in granites and granite pegmatites, never in any other rock types, excepting locally near Bancroft.

In that area, the uranium-bearing calcite veins cross-cut the granitic rocks, and Po halos are absent from mafic rocks whether the mafic rocks are older or younger in age than the granites. This is true even when biotite is relatively abundant among the mafic minerals. These Po-halo-free rocks include biotite-bearing gabbros, diorites, and tonalites, as well as their volcanic equivalents. On the basis of field, chemical, and microscopic textural relationships, all of these mafic rocks are crystallized from magmas at high temperatures.

It is odd that Po halos are found only in certain, supposedly primordial, biotite-bearing granites and not in all primordial, biotite-bearing rocks. The Creator was evidently very selective about where he tucked the short-lived Po!

A second oddity I discovered was that all of the granites in which Gentry found Po halos also contain myrmekite. Myrmekite is a replacement mineral intergrowth, a fact that suggests that Po halos may not be present in all granites but only in granites formed by replacement processes. Conversely, perhaps only granites containing myrmekite should exhibit Po halos. In reality these do not always contain Po halos. Again, the Creator was very selective.

Some granites are derived from melted sedimentary or rhyolitic volcanic rocks, some by fractionation within magma (either partial melting or fractional crystallization), and some by partial melting and rising of magma that leaves behind a mafic residue (restite). Granites derived from melts do not contain Po halos.

The third oddity I noted is that Po-halo-bearing rocks are always associated with uranium concentrations. Gentry describes several uranium-rich localities that contain Po halos, including some in Finland, Sweden, Germany, Canada, and New England (Gentry 1988, page 36; Wiman 1930).

Why, one must wonder, would an all-powerful Creator choose to put Po halos only in rocks that contain abundant uranium? If Gentry is correct, and Po halos have no association with uranium, why does the Creator not put the Po halos also in granites free of uranium concentrations?

Polonium, being one of the daughter products of the radioactive decay of uranium, is expected to be found near uranium concentrations. To suppose a supernatural origin for the Po-halo-bearing granites is irrational.
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm

Take a read; the details are even more interesting.

 

[lordkalvan]

Thanks for that interesting discussion on Polonium halos, Barbarian. I have been absent from my Internet connection for a week and unable to research the matter myself, but it seems to be as I suspected: the research on the claim RND posted was both mistaken and misleading. I wonder if RND will care to comment on the subject further?