25 Jun 05
Originally posted by yousersI would like to accept your apology.
You are right, I would like to apologize to frogstop for that remark. My frustration has shown through towards those who discredit their opponents by claiming conspiracy theory. How can we have a constructive debate when he cannot show his opponent an ounce of respect? If that is hi preconceived notion, then he should not bother; similarly, if a creationist IS out here only to further the religion, then he will not contribute anything either.
read through the other thread " Evolution Cruncher"
My low opinion of him is well justified.
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
26 Jun 05
Sorry Evolution is not a fact, why, because it cannot be tested through the scientific method. The fact of the matter is, when evolutionists try to recreate the beginning of the world according to their hypothesis. That's fine, but what was there? Evolutionists claim that the early atmosphere was hostile to life. It was discovered in the supposed oldest rock strata was iodized iron, showing the existence of oxygen an element not considered to be present in the early earth. The experments conducted by evolutionists is tainted with biased. In addition the dating methods, in particular Uranium/Lead are suspect, because they are based on three (3) assumptions. 1) We know the parent/daughter element relationship. Which we can't know. 2) That the decay rate of parent to daughter element was consistent through the ages. That is impossible to know. 3) That there were no external influences on the decay rate. Lead 207 can leach from the water and morph into Lead 206. So there is no way that the dating methoods are reliable. Evolution is not a fact or a science, it is an unproven theory of origins as is creationism.
26 Jun 05
Originally posted by Langtree🙄🙄
Sorry Evolution is not a fact, why, because it cannot be tested through the scientific method. The fact of the matter is, when evolutionists try to recreate the beginning of the world according to their hypothesis. That's fine, but what was there? Evolutionists claim that the early atmosphere was hostile to life. It was discovered in the supposed olde ...[text shortened]... e. Evolution is not a fact or a science, it is an unproven theory of origins as is creationism.
26 Jun 05
Originally posted by Langtreecan somebody please help me out here? are not evolution and abiogenesis two different and separate discussions?
Sorry Evolution is not a fact, why, because it cannot be tested through the scientific method. The fact of the matter is, when evolutionists try to recreate the beginning of the world according to their hypothesis. That's fine, but what was there? Evolutionists claim that the early atmosphere was hostile to life. It was discovered in the supposed olde ...[text shortened]... e. Evolution is not a fact or a science, it is an unproven theory of origins as is creationism.
i don't understand why dj2, and now langtree, seem to argue that evolution, to be correct, must also be able to explain the creation of life from nonlife at the beginning.
my question: is it fair to stipulate that evolution, to be complete, must also explain this beginning point? i don't think so.
i still maintain that the essential features of evolution are much easier to swallow than those of creationism. the beginning of life and matter should be a separate discussion i think.
in short, i think arguing against evolution because it fails to do the job of abiogenesis demonstrates nothing. please help me out if you think i am mistaken as, admittedly, this is not my area of expertise.
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
27 Jun 05
In addition to the others problems. The fossil record is evolution's greatest enemy. Darwin admitted that in his book in chapter 9, "on the imperfection of the Geological Record." The problem is still present. The intermediary forms are severely lacking, the systematics gaps are beyond explanation, though Stephen Gould tried to wiith punctuated equalibrianism, which smacks of creationism. Maybe evolutionists should read Michael Denton's book, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis" written in 1985. Denton, by the way is an evolutionist.
27 Jun 05
2 edits
Originally posted by LangtreeThen try reading some legitimate science sites instead of that crackpot christian creationist bullchips.
Abiogenesis and evolution are similar. I don't support evolution. I do support objective scientific investigation.
btw we have answered all that garbage before read the threads
and don't waste peoples time by raising that ignorant junk.
Raise some fresh ignorant junk and you might be get a few serious responses.
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloI think in order to establish evolution, or at least discredit creationism, there must be a plausible origin of life of natural cause. If we have just evolution from an original ancestor, but we have nothing to say about that ancestor, does that not imply the need for some kind of creation?
can somebody please help me out here? are not evolution and abiogenesis two different and separate discussions?
i don't understand why dj2, and now langtree, seem to argue that evolution, to be correct, must also be able to explain the creation of life from nonlife at the beginning.
my question: is it fair to stipulate that evolution, to be comple ...[text shortened]... please help me out if you think i am mistaken as, admittedly, this is not my area of expertise.
Evolution an abiogensis are somewhat separate topics but the question at hand is whether natural or supernatural causes are capable of creating and maintaining life. If there is no plausible natural explanation, then perhaps the scientific explanation is not superior to the creationist view.
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by yousersperhaps the subatomic particles just decided to merge into life so they could move around , too.
I think in order to establish evolution, or at least discredit creationism, there must be a plausible origin of life of natural cause. If we have just evolution from an original ancestor, but we have nothing to say about that ancestor, does that not imply the need for some kind of creation?
Evolution an abiogensis are somewhat separate topics but the quest ...[text shortened]... al explanation, then perhaps the scientific explanation is not superior to the creationist view.
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe last bastion of scoundrels, maybe?
can somebody please help me out here? are not evolution and abiogenesis two different and separate discussions?
i don't understand why dj2, and now langtree, seem to argue that evolution, to be correct, must also be able to explain the creation of life from nonlife at the beginning.
my question: is it fair to stipulate that evolution, to be comple ...[text shortened]... please help me out if you think i am mistaken as, admittedly, this is not my area of expertise.
Wont matter soon anyway , its getting closer to the day that the ground work will be finished and Voila!!!!!!!! life from non-life in a test tube.
27 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Langtree
It was discovered in the supposed oldest rock strata was iodized iron, showing the existence of oxygen an element not considered to be present in the early earth
Iodized Iron? I think you meant oxyidized iron, and it isn't as simple as you make out. There is some quite convincing evidence that there was little to no oxygen present in the early atmosphere. For example the presence of minerals that only form in no, or very low oxygen environments over 2 billion years ago. Also the lack of red beds that far back.
Originally posted by Langtree
In addition the dating methods, in particular Uranium/Lead are suspect, because they are based on three (3) assumptions. 1) We know the parent/daughter element relationship. Which we can't know.
The relationship between parent/daughter elements is that decay of the parent produces the daughter. I assume you worded the above wrong.
Originally posted by Langtree
2) That the decay rate of parent to daughter element was consistent through the ages. That is impossible to know. 3) That there were no external influences on the decay rate
These last two are the same question really. What sort of external influence can change the decay rate?
Originally posted by Langtree
Lead 207 can leach from the water and morph into Lead 206
Explain what this is in reference to. You haven't described which radiodating method this presents a problem for, and which measurements using that method have encountered this problem. Use of the word "morph" is a little odd.