[_ Old Earth _] science against evolution

[jwu]

you refered to my statement on what if the theory of abiogenesis is shot then you said your comment what if god did it.

Yes, that would be a case of a miracle. I have no issue with that.

you are an enigma then, you pick to which miracle you want to accept.

No. I demand evidence for those for which there is a reasonable chance that they have left evidence that lasts to this day. For the others i do not demand evidence, for there is no evidence possible. I mean, what would evidence for water being turned into wine look like, after 2000 years? How about walking on water, what examinable physical evidence could that possible leave behind? None. Hence i demand no evidence for this.

The spontaneous creation of 59000000000000000000000000 tons of matter which exist to this day however is a different category. That most certainly should leave clearly identifiable evidence. Agreed?

What is so difficult to understand about this difference? If you find that there is a logical problem with that distinction, then please address it specifically so that we can take steps forward. I'm getting tired of repeating it every few posts.

if genesis is a literary device on the nature of creation(the parts that mention it) what is the meaning of it, and i know that its not a scientific explanation, to the tee.

In short, it's an allegory about the intellectual development of mankind, and how man became morally responsible for his deeds through gaining a concept of right and wrong.

 

[jasoncran]

No. I demand evidence for those for which there is a reasonable chance that they have left evidence that lasts to this day. For the others i do not demand evidence, for there is no evidence possible. I mean, what would evidence for water being turned into wine look like, after 2000 years? How about walking on water, what examinable physical evidence could that possible leave behind? None. Hence i demand no evidence for this.
but you just accept this, odd when you claim that the creation must have an evidence to it. yet the cross and miracles. nope. yet this is inconsitent in my opinion
The spontaneous creation of 59000000000000000000000000 tons of matter which exist to this day however is a different category. That most certainly should leave clearly identifiable evidence. Agreed?the currents theories dont account for where it came from, what nothing, God isnt needed for the big bang. nor the toe, you dont see this though

What is so difficult to understand about this difference? If you find that there is a logical problem with that distinction, then please address it specifically so that we can take steps forward. I'm getting tired of repeating it every few posts.because you sir, want to seem to take the ressurection as spritual,and reject the very book that culminates the end times for the most part, if we were debating the prophecies of the coming messiah and he didnt come yet, honeslty i dont think you wouldnt believe it.

[]In short, it's an allegory about the intellectual development of mankind, and how man became morally responsible for his deeds through gaining a concept of right and wrong.[/quote]
yes but the toe cant explain how intellegence is come to be nor how langagues came to be.that maybe in another theory. and what of the field of evolutionary physcohology.

for if we came through the toe where did our behaviors come from. i wont accept miracles as that isnt a scientific valid explanation

 

[Crying Rock]

Where were Precambrian deposits formed?

Roughly all over the earth, from the polar regions to the equator.

Can you imagine any bunnies running around in that environment?

Yes, they could thrive in that environment.

[quote:25fqtaln]How old are the oldest remaining surface deposits on earth (alluvial, fluvial, aeolian, etc...)?

[quote:25fqtaln]
That'd be sedimentary rocks from greenland, measured at 3.9 billion years.

Crying Rock wrote:

Where were Precambrian deposits formed?

jwu wrote

Roughly all over the earth, from the polar regions to the equator.

Let me clarify. Where were Precambrian deposits formed in 4D?

CR:

Can you imagine any bunnies running around in that environment?

jwu:

Yes, they could thrive in that environment.

In what environment?


[/quote:25fqtaln]
That' d be sedimentary rocks from greenland, measured at 3.9 billion years.
[/quote:25fqtaln]

Are the Greenland deposits surface or subsurface deposits?

Sedimentary rocks:

"...Sedimentary rock is a type of rock that is formed by sedimentation of material at the Earth's surface and within bodies of water..."

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

Sure, bunnies CAN swim, but what do you think of the chances are of a bunny being preserved in a water environment?

In what strata are the oldest fossils found?

What is the oldest surface (land) sedimentary deposit. Marine deposits are not surface deposits in the argument I'm proposing. Hence the bunnies don't usually swim in oceans and seas.

For thousands, even millions of years, little pieces of our earth have been eroded--broken down and worn away by wind and water. These little bits of our earth are washed downstream where they settle to the bottom of the rivers, lakes, and oceans. Layer after layer of eroded earth is deposited on top of each. These layers are pressed down more and more through time, until the bottom layers slowly turn into rock.

http://www.fi.edu/fellows/fellow1/oct98 ... diment.htm

 

[Barbarian]

Actually, Darwin did speculate in "The Origin of Species" on the origin of life, but carefully avoided making it part of this theory. He didn't have any evidence for the way it happened, so didn't hypothesize.

He merely said this:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

It's the last sentence in my 1872 edition. Surprising, um?

Like so many other things in that cobbled-up list, the idea that evolution is about the origin of life is at best an ignorant errror. Often, it's an outright dishonesty. And you have to ask yourself, if truth is on the side of creationists, why do they feel the need to write this sort of thing.

 

[Barbarian]

Sure, bunnies CAN swim, but what do you think of the chances are of a bunny being preserved in a water environment?

Pretty good. Swamps are a great spot, for example. Likewise old desert washes that tend to accumulate fossils (dead animals caught in thunderstorms in low spots are washed down gullies to be deposited at the terminus)

The oldest known lagomorph (rabbit) fossil was found in mudstone in the Gobi desert.
Gomphos elkema
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~pkoch/pdfs/Koch ... 3425-1.pdf

In what strata are the oldest fossils found?

Precambrian.

What is the oldest surface (land) sedimentary deposit.

Several billion years old, IIRC. Nothing living in them, of course.

Marine deposits are not surface deposits in the argument I'm proposing. Hence the bunnies don't usually swim in oceans and seas.

But there is water on land, and so we have bunny fossils in water-born deposits. Just not Cambrian ones.

 

[logical bob]

I would have loved to get to this one when it was fresh yesterday but I just didn't have time.

I bet these guys actually are creationists, even if they don't want to make it obvious. Their theses cover abiogenesis, evolution, big bang cosmology and radiometric dating/geological layers (as applied to the age of the planet). What brings these diverse scientific areas onto one page? It can't be coincidence that it's all the things that annoy young earth creationists. The focus on educational policy rather than scientific truth is rather telling too.

However, I've argued elsewhere that the beliefs of the person making the argument don't matter. It's the evidence that counts, so let's have a look.

This point about the first single-celled organism appearing spontaneously from the primeval ooze... nobody claims that. I was saying this exact thing to Bronzesnake in a different thread very recently. The cell is thought to be the product of about a billion years of evolution. The first self-replicating molecules would have been far, far simpler. This whole claim is a big massive strawman. Please understand that evolutionary theory doesn't say that a cell could appear in one step. For a very readable account, taking only about 20 pages, of what the process was thought to be please see the first few chapters of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Just pick it up in a library and read that one passage. Afterwards you'll disagree with Dawkins just as much as you do now, but you won't fall for this particular creationist misrepresentation again.

The website puts a big emphasis on the claim that the scientific method is about results that can be repeated in the lab. Well again, no it isn't. If it was then meteorology, seismology and astrophysics would be beyond the realm of science because we can't repeat a hurricane, an earthquake or a solar system in the lab. Evolution and abiogenesis are processes which have taken the whole planet and billions of years. Is it surprising that we can't make that happen in a test tube on demand?

The scientific method is about saying "if this theory were true, what would we expect to see?" If the answer if that we'd see what we do in fact see then it's looking good for the theory. This is a test that evolution passes with flying colours.

There are plenty more very basic problems and misunderstanding in those 75 theses (couldn't they have thought of 20 more for the symbolism?), but as nobody wants to take on Barbarian's challenge of defending a specific point I'll leave it there just now.

Cheers.

 

[jasoncran]

Actually, Darwin did speculate in "The Origin of Species" on the origin of life, but carefully avoided making it part of this theory. He didn't have any evidence for the way it happened, so didn't hypothesize.

He merely said this:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

It's the last sentence in my 1872 edition. Surprising, um?
yup did him much Good, died never believing that (the lord) did it. an agnostic. i have shown you that before. He went from saying the bible was inspired to well genesis isnt literal to, well i dont think this or that book is the truth, to total disbelief. and denying the cross.
Like so many other things in that cobbled-up list, the idea that evolution is about the origin of life is at best an ignorant errror. Often, it's an outright dishonesty. And you have to ask yourself, if truth is on the side of creationists, why do they feel the need to write this sort of thing.

 

[jasoncran]

barb the mighty efficient public school system(secular) taught me that one. not a creationist.

 

[Barbarian]

yup did him much Good, died never believing that (the lord) did it. an agnostic. i have shown you that before. He went from saying the bible was inspired to well genesis isnt literal to, well i dont think this or that book is the truth, to total disbelief. and denying the cross.

Late in life, he admitted to be "tending toward agnosticism." But when he wrote the book, he assumed God did it. Doesn't really matter; what counts is the science. And that is very good.

Barbarian observes:
Like so many other things in that cobbled-up list, the idea that evolution is about the origin of life is at best an ignorant errror. Often, it's an outright dishonesty. And you have to ask yourself, if truth is on the side of creationists, why do they feel the need to write this sort of thing.

 

[jasoncran]

actually no, i dug this up on science site.

and it will post there in the science forum.

 

[Physicist]

while that might not be in the book of the origins. it revelant since the other person went to make that the the theory of abiogenesis.

if life cant come from non life and experiment after experiment proves this, what then?

No, that is wrong my friend. Scientists have constructed polio viruses from components. The question is not if life originated on earth from molecular components. That is obviously demonstrated by life being here. The question is how did it happen. As a comparison, we know that the sun was formed, not by the actions of Zeus, but by gravitational compression of hydrogen gas. We don't know all the details and no one has created a sun in his laboratory, but that hardly suggests that we should be looking for supernatural causes.

Finally, as others have pointed out, ambiogenesis has nothing to do with Darwin's Theory.

 

[Barbarian]

10. If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
11. For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
12. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
13. Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
14. Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
15. “Abiogenesis†is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.

The hidden assumption; if life can't appear in 50 years in very tiny quantities of matter, then it couldn't possibly have done so in a billion years given the entire Earth. Since God has Himself said that it did, the answer should be easy for a Christian.

 

[Barbarian]

Jason, do you know what page this claim is made on? I note that many proponents of ToE claim that evolution doesn't deal with origins. To me this is a cop out.

So you think chemistry cops out because it doesn't explain where atoms came from? Most likely not. Why not? Probably because chemistry doesn't scare you.

To ToE proponents every species on earth can be attributed to an ancient, single living organism, or at least a very small population. But explaining or asking how that first living organism(s) came to be seems to be out of bounds for ToE.

Remember to scientists, theories are only accountable for the predictions they make. To a layman, this might seem unreasonable, but that's the way science works.

 

[jasoncran]

i am aware that the toe doesnt adress the begginings of life. and that chemistry doenst deal with origins of the matter that is.