Life origins: Metabolism before life began:

Originally posted by RJHinds
The scientists say there are many evidences that limit the age of the universe and the earth to less than billions of years. The evolutionists are always wanting to use the maximam time for the age of the earth, however, that is not logical.

You don't even have your OWN bogus facts right. The age of the universe does not limit the age of the Earth since the universe is 14 odd billion years old and Earth less than 5 billion years old.

We have also found sister stars that formed from the same nebula that gave us our sun, one is almost a dup of the sun about 110 ly away. The nebula that gave us our sun did not limit itself to just making sol, there were about 5000 similar kind of stars born at the same time from that nebula.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You don't even have your OWN bogus facts right. The age of the universe does not limit the age of the Earth since the universe is 14 odd billion years old and Earth less than 5 billion years old.

We have also found sister stars that formed from the same nebula that gave us our sun, one is almost a dup of the sun about 110 ly away. The nebula that gave us ...[text shortened]... making sol, there were about 5000 similar kind of stars born at the same time from that nebula.

None of that means that the universe is any older than the earth.

Originally posted by RJHinds
None of that means that the universe is any older than the earth.

Looking into the universe is looking into a time machine, the deeper you go the further back in time you go. Right now we are looking at stuff that happened about 400,000 years after the theorized big bang or whatever it was that happened at time zero. There wasn't even ATOMS around at that time, the energy being too high to allow for atoms to stick together. That came only after the universe cooled down enough to ALLOW atoms and molecules to come into existence.

And that was mainly hydrogen and helium, the heavy stuff came later, that is clear in the astronomical record. The heavy stuff came when stars exploded, something we can see today, there are literally BILLIONS of exploding stars at all stages of development from the first puffs to the final explosion of energy equal for a short time the entire energy output of the whole universe, which doesn't last long but during that incredible output of energy, the heavy stuff was made, like iron, uranium, sodium aluminum and the like.

Much as you HATE the idea, the universe is like a layered sediment of rock here on Earth where you can clearly see stuff deposited and then stuff deposited on top of that and so forth.

That we can chart in astronomy because there are SO many stars in various stages of their life cycle.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Looking into the universe is looking into a time machine, the deeper you go the further back in time you go. Right now we are looking at stuff that happened about 400,000 years after the theorized big bang or whatever it was that happened at time zero. There wasn't even ATOMS around at that time, the energy being too high to allow for atoms to stick togethe ...[text shortened]... we can chart in astronomy because there are SO many stars in various stages of their life cycle.

You guys are only looking into imaginary time.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You guys are only looking into imaginary time.

And you are only looking with your imaginary mind. Try actually THINKING for yourself for a change rather than following the programming inherent in your religion.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And you are only looking with your imaginary mind. Try actually THINKING for yourself for a change rather than following the programming inherent in your religion.

Have you actually looked at the evidence from both side and did your own thinking to determine which makes the most sense? I don't think so. Perhaps you need help with logic and reason. Evolutionists don't even have answers to how the first organism came in to being so it could be the ancestor to all.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Life-Giver must be living because of the Law of Biogenesis. Life is difficult to define exactly, so we can only give an approximate definition. Life includes something that is immaterial, like a soul, that is able to animate something that is material.

Your logic is somewhat circular.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Your logic is somewhat circular.

Evolutionists Date Rocks & Fossils with Circular Reasoning

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Life-Giver must be living because of the Law of Biogenesis. Life is difficult to define exactly, so we can only give an approximate definition. Life includes something that is immaterial, like a soul, that is able to animate something that is material.

Does bacteria have souls, or are they not alive?

Originally posted by C Hess
Does bacteria have souls, or are they not alive?

Bacteria are alive like plants, but have no souls.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Bacteria are alive like plants, but have no souls.

But you said life includes something immaterial, like a soul.

Originally posted by C Hess
But you said life includes something immaterial, like a soul.

Mind and consciousness are also immaterial, so what?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolutionists Date Rocks & Fossils with Circular Reasoning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efcJEIV2RAk

I'm not going to watch a video on You Tube.

The argument that they use rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks is only any good if they measure the age of all rocks using only fossils and vice versa. Sadly for your point they have other means to age rocks. Once a scale is established then it can be used in this way.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'm not going to watch a video on You Tube.

The argument that they use rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks is only any good if they measure the age of all rocks using only fossils and vice versa. Sadly for your point they have other means to age rocks. Once a scale is established then it can be used in this way.

However, they used index fossils to date the rock layers and the rock layers to date the new fossils long before they had any other dating methods. And even now, they only accept a new method's date if it comes out close to the old method of circular reasoning. That still makes it circular reasoning.

Originally posted by RJHinds
However, they used index fossils to date the rock layers and the rock layers to date the new fossils long before they had any other dating methods. And even now, they only accept a new method's date if it comes out close to the old method of circular reasoning. That still makes it circular reasoning.

You've ignored my point, the relative ages of strata are known from their ordering, index fossils are used when the strata are disordered. There are restrictions on what fossils may be used as indices precisely to avoid the type of error you are hoping for. Further relative ages are not absolute ages. The ordering of strata tell one that the Triassic preceded the Jurassic, but not (with any great degree of precision) how long the eras were. Those claims, in general, had to wait for other methods.
You seem unable to distinguish between an organised body of knowledge and a circular argument.