Originally posted by KellyJayOk then,
Pick one we can discuss it.
Kelly
edit:
By the way thank you for going back and showing me what posts you
were talking about.
1. what are your objections to my post dated 10:42 on the 19th.
2. what are your objections to my post dated 12:19 on the 19th.
3. what are your objections to my post dated 13:49 on the 19th.
If you want to be spoon-fed, then we can just start with number 1.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by KellyJayscotty's evidence was that rocks dated many eons in the past contain little to no oxygen. You criticized this evidence on the grounds that the dating method is inaccurate. Since I know you believe in a young earth, I can only assume that you believe these rocks are less than 7,000 years old.
Why do you say that or ask that?
Kelly
You did not, however, challenge his assertion that the lack of oxygen in the rocks implies that there was little to no free atmospheric oxygen. Do you believe your god just made these rocks oxygen-less?
As long as we're going back and looking at previous posts:
What's wrong with one of my first posts?
Why don't you believe in the One True God as your Lord and Savior?
or
Why don't you believe that God created all things with the appearance of age?
or (my personal favorite):
Why don't you read the book of Genesis VERY VERY VERY SLOWLY?
Originally posted by telerionNo, I said his methods could have holes in it. Why doesn't the
scotty's evidence was that rocks dated many eons in the past contain little to no oxygen. You criticized this evidence on the grounds that the dating method is inaccurate. Since I know you believe in a young earth, I can only assume that you believe these rocks are less than 7,000 years old.
You did not, however, challenge his assertion that the lack ...[text shortened]... ttle to no free atmospheric oxygen. Do you believe your god just made these rocks oxygen-less?
oxygen show up, does it have something to do with the age of the
rocks, or something else that makes the rocks appear that old when
you apply tests. What we don't know is a lot more than what we
do, so telling me that you know this true because ... leaves a lot of
room for error. That was my statement, if you want to believe the
rocks are that old because ... and there is something else that could
be affecting them, you know what is true, because? The methods
cannot be proven they can only be accepted, why there is no oxygen
may have something to do with the method rendering the dating
results to appear that old, there are a lot of variables, we may not
know them all. Claiming to have it in the bag as to why this is so, is
not any different in my opinion than someone saying ID is true, it is
faith based.
Kelly
Originally posted by PenguinSpoon fed, please. You are not that important, if I read your posts
Ok then,
1. what are your objections to my post dated 10:42 on the 19th.
2. what are your objections to my post dated 12:19 on the 19th.
3. what are your objections to my post dated 13:49 on the 19th.
If you want to be spoon-fed, then we can just start with number 1.
--- Penguin.
it is because I may have passing interest in what you have to say,
and I assume that is true when you read mine. If you want to have
a discussion we can. I'll go back and read your first unless you want
to talk about another first.
Kelly
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayThere is nothing about dating methods that should depend upon oxygen content. So are you claiming then that there is some force, yet unknown to man, that both alters the decay rate of many independent types of isotopes (so that all current tests are extremely biased toward old age) and simultaneously disguises oxygen in any rock older than some date?
No, I said his methods [b]could have holes in it. Why doesn't the
oxygen show up, does it have something to do with the age of the
rocks, or something else that makes the rocks appear that old when
you apply tests. What we don't know is a lot more than what we
do, so telling me that you know this true because ... leaves a lot of
room for error. Tha ...[text shortened]... is
not any different in my opinion than someone saying ID is true, it is
faith based.
Kelly[/b]
It seems that you really don't want to do is take a stand on anything. You simply want to divorce all empirical work from your faith-based hypothesis.
Edit: I see now. Anything could be wrong. Geesh, KJ, with such extreme skepticism, I'm surprised you'd be a born-again xian. Surely, you don't find it odd that we don't believe in your young earth and special creationism right? I mean you have zero solid evidence for any of it, but even if you had a mountainload we could just sit back and say, "You could be wrong."
I don't want to offend you; but, personally, I think that's a very disingenious way to live.
Originally posted by NosracAll of those are false, because an omniscient, omnibenevolent God could never create someone so disingeneous, so ignorant, and plain annoying as you.
As long as we're going back and looking at previous posts:
What's wrong with one of my first posts?
Why don't you believe in the One True God as your Lord and Savior?
or
Why don't you believe that God created all things with the appearance of age?
or (my personal favorite):
Why don't you read the book of Genesis VERY VERY VERY SLOWLY?
Originally posted by NosracI yell you what, I'll believe you if you can show me proof that doesn't involve either of the following:
As long as we're going back and looking at previous posts:
What's wrong with one of my first posts?
Why don't you believe in the One True God as your Lord and Savior?
or
Why don't you believe that God created all things with the appearance of age?
or (my personal favorite):
Why don't you read the book of Genesis VERY VERY VERY SLOWLY?
a. the Bible says so
b. some charlatan told me
Originally posted by KellyJay1. what are your objections to my post dated 10:42 on the 19th.
Spoon fed, please. You are not that important, if I read your posts
it is because I may have passing interest in what you have to say,
and I assume that is true when you read mine. If you want to have
a discussion we can. I'll go back and read your first unless you want
to talk about another first.
Kelly
That one then.
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are giving opinion based on your poor understanding of science. Scientists give qualified opinions based upon what is, and is not, physically possible according to the physical and chemical rules on which the universe seems to operate. Notice any difference?
No, I said his methods [b]could have holes in it. Why doesn't the
oxygen show up, does it have something to do with the age of the
rocks, or something else that makes the rocks appear that old when
you apply tests. What we don't know is a lot more than what we
do, so telling me that you know this true because ... leaves a lot of
room for error. Tha ...[text shortened]... is
not any different in my opinion than someone saying ID is true, it is
faith based.
Kelly[/b]
What is Wrong With Evolution? Is the theme of this thread. Here's a quotation for consideration of that question:
"Evolution is thus basically an attempt to explain the origin of life from matter and energy without the aid of know-how, concept, teleonomy or exogenous (extra-material) information. It represents an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA without the aid of a genetic concept (information) originating outside the molecules of the chromosomes. This is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information ..."
- A. E. Wilder Smith - Phd. Organic Chemistry, Dr. es Sc. & D.Sc. Pharmacology - The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, c1981, Master Books, Orig. German (Die Naturwissenschaften Kennen Keinen Evolution)
Originally posted by jaywillAn interesting quote but, I think, not a valid definition of the Theory of Evolution.
What is Wrong With Evolution? Is the theme of this thread. Here's a quotation for consideration of that question:
[b]"Evolution is thus basically an attempt to explain the origin of life from matter and energy without the aid of know-how, concept, teleonomy or exogenous (extra-material) information. It represents an attempt to explain the formation ...[text shortened]... on, c1981, Master Books, Orig. German (Die Naturwissenschaften Kennen Keinen Evolution) [/b]
1. The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life from matter and energy at all; its abiogenesis that does that. Evolution is an attempt to explain how complex and varied life could have developed from simpler life using only well understood facts of heredity, eg that offspring are always similar to but with slight differences from, their parents. It's the only theory that does this and so far, all attempts to disprove it have failed.
2. The theory of evolution was formulated before the discovery of DNA and the way it transmits genetic information. The theory predicted that there must be some kind of genetic code and the discovery of DNA therefore just strengthened and reinforced the theory.
--- Al.
Ps, Any response yet to my post from 10:42 on the 19th?
1 edit
Originally posted by PenguinI bet that is you check the time of that #1 you'll find that it is much more recent.
An interesting quote but, I think, not a valid definition of the Theory of Evolution.
1. The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life from matter and energy at all; its abiogenesis that does that. Evolution is an attempt to explain how complex and varied life could have developed from simpler life using only well understood fact nd reinforced the theory.
--- Al.
Ps, Any response yet to my post from 10:42 on the 19th?
Only a few decades ago did evolutionists begin to distance themselves from the thorny origin of life issue.
Today the mantra is that Evolution has nothing to do with origin of life problems.
It use to!
The many experiments to create life in the lab. Evolution use to be about origin of life problems. I can remember.
Originally posted by PenguinI'll look at the post latter to which you still expect a response.
An interesting quote but, I think, not a valid definition of the Theory of Evolution.
1. The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life from matter and energy at all; its abiogenesis that does that. Evolution is an attempt to explain how complex and varied life could have developed from simpler life using only well understood fact ...[text shortened]... nd reinforced the theory.
--- Al.
Ps, Any response yet to my post from 10:42 on the 19th?
Originally posted by jaywillCan you give a reference for that for me to check it out? Surely no-one with an understanding of the theory could ever claim that it explained tha first origin of life since one of evolutions pre-requisites is life (the existance of self-replicating structures). So I'd like you to point me at documents or reputable papers where this claim is made by evolutionary biologists.
I bet that is you check the time of that #1 you'll find that it is much more recent.
Only a few decades ago did evolutionists begin to distance themselves from the thorny origin of life issue.
Today the mantra is that Evolution has nothing to do with origin of life problems.
It use to!
The many experiments to create life in the lab. Evolution use to be about origin of life problems. I can remember.
I also don't think that such past assertions on the scope of evolution actually have any bearing on whether the theory does or does not model the way the current diversity of life came about (given the pre-existance of self replicating structures a few BYA).
--- Penguin.