A Bio Genesis

@humy said
The Earth is approximately 4.543 billion years old give or take up to 0.5 billion years old if we are extremely generous with the maximum assumed margin of error in the scientific estimations.
What is absolutely certain even given the most ridiculously WILDLY allowed assumed margin of error is that the Earth is over, say, 1 billion years old. The evidence in the layers of rock ...[text shortened]... the evidence for it and still deny it then that's like you being a member of the flat-Earth society.

Thank you for the input! I just wanted a little clarity on what is being said when someone says this is a fact, which I think is quite different than saying most everything else.

@humy said
I can tell the difference;
An unguided process without a purpose generally leads to imperfections and/or arbitrary redundant features that only an idiot designer would make.
Examples;
What's the 'purpose' of the male nipple?
What's the 'purpose' of putting the blood blood vessels and the nerve connections for the human retina in front of it rather behind it where it wouldn ...[text shortened]... igned by a moron, all these thing indicated that a process without purpose created these structures.

"What's the 'purpose' of putting the blood blood vessels and the nerve connections for the human retina in front of it rather behind it where it wouldn't partly block the light especially in very dim light?"

Would you mind some questions about evolution and the eye? Without a doubt we can discuss the human retina since you have looked into it. (pun not intended)

@kellyjay said
You are the only here bringing up 6000 years old. I'm just trying to find out what you mean by facts. If you want to start a conversation about God I'd be happy too, and if you want to take to proper forum for that we can. I don't think you can carry on a conversation without bringing up God in some way here with me.

You identified yourself as a young Earther, I assume that means you think Earth is what they made it out to be, 6000 odd years old.
If that is what you really think, all your objections about facts and such are just diversion from the fact you don't believe ANY scientific evidence such as the argon dating Humy mentioned.
The only disagreement about age of Earth is plus or minus a few million years, just evidence showing not 4.53 but 4.54 or 4.52 billion years old. NOBODY but young Earthers say Earth is even 10 million years old which is the first estimate a couple hundred years ago.

Definition of 'fact'


SINCE 1828
JOIN MWU GAMES BROWSE THESAURUS WORD OF THE DAY WORDS AT PLAY TIME TRAVELER
Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram

fact
DICTIONARY
THESAURUS
JOIN MWU
GAMES
THESAURUS
WORD OF THE DAY
WORDS AT PLAY
TIME TRAVELER
Follow:
Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram

fact noun
\ ˈfakt \
Definition of fact
1a : something that has actual existence
space exploration is now a fact
b : an actual occurrence
prove the fact of damage
2 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
These are the hard facts of the case.
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY
a question of fact hinges on evidence
4 : a thing done: such as
a : CRIME
accessory after the fact
b archaic : ACTION
c obsolete : FEAT
5 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
in fact
: in truth
He looks younger, but in fact, he is 60 years old.

Why other than religious objection would you deny Earth as extremely old? Do you think quibbling about words like facts is going to give you arguing points?
I asked you already how you could look at a rock formation that is twisted 180 degrees like taffy and rationalize to yourself, wow, that happened in only a few thousand years? For instance, the Grand Canyon is thought to be about 50 million years old and young earthers just say that was the result of the world wide flood but they ignore the MILES of sediment UNDERNEATH the grand canyon and you have to know is layered millimeter by millimeter over EONS of time. You can't rationalize THAT one away. That is one word that 'fact' fits very will. Core drilling beneath the grand canyon PROVES there was ages upon ages of ocean under the GC and no amount of rationalization will change that fact.
That is what we mean by "Fact".
If you can't agree with that then there is no possibility of discussion.
All you need to do is go to a geological museum to see the miles of core drilled out of the Earth.
I suppose you can rationalize all that away with, Earth was MADE that way, to fool humans into THINKING Earth was old.
But if you go back in time when humans started making towns the hills and such are almost exactly the same as they are now, the 7 hills of Rome for instance, no change in those hills except minor erosion.
I assume therefore that you rationalize the young Earth by saying exactly that, it was MADE to look old even though there is zero evidence there was any time when humans and dinosaurs walked together.
I don't know how you can live in the 21st century still thinking after all the scientific advancement humans have made, that Earth could be anything like 6000 years old.

@sonhouse said
You identified yourself as a young Earther, I assume that means you think Earth is what they made it out to be, 6000 odd years old.
If that is what you really think, all your objections about facts and such are just diversion from the fact you don't believe ANY scientific evidence such as the argon dating Humy mentioned.
The only disagreement about age of Earth is plus or ...[text shortened]... r all the scientific advancement humans have made, that Earth could be anything like 6000 years old.

This OP isn’t about me, you my find me easier to talk to than the topic, since you have yet to stay on topic without changing the subject.

@kellyjay said
This OP isn’t about me, you my find me easier to talk to than the topic, since you have yet to stay on topic without changing the subject.

This young Earth thing taints the entire talk. You admitted being one. That means you must deny the view Earth is billions of years old. Why don't you want to talk about that? We say life began billions of years ago, you seem to be saying 'I don't care what science says, life began 6000 years ago'.
What do you say about that?

@sonhouse said
This young Earth thing taints the entire talk. You admitted being one. That means you must deny the view Earth is billions of years old. Why don't you want to talk about that? We say life began billions of years ago, you seem to be saying 'I don't care what science says, life began 6000 years ago'.
What do you say about that?

For you me being a Christian is enough to taint any discussion. Age of the earth is meaningless to any topic I have brought up, and I am willing to grant for the sake of argument any age you can justify. If you could stay on topic it would be a nice change of pace.

@sonhouse said
This young Earth thing taints the entire talk. You admitted being one. That means you must deny the view Earth is billions of years old. Why don't you want to talk about that? We say life began billions of years ago, you seem to be saying 'I don't care what science says, life began 6000 years ago'.
What do you say about that?

The thing is you reduce everything done down to possible motivation without looking at how solid and above board they were done. You put yourself into the position of being purely blind to anything that may be true outside of your beliefs, not because of the science, but you prejudices.

@kellyjay said
The thing is you reduce everything done down to possible motivation without looking at how solid and above board they were done. You put yourself into the position of being purely blind to anything that may be true outside of your beliefs, not because of the science, but you prejudices.

Your prejudices against science are showing now, not mine. You clearly are dissing any idea of an old Earth. But you won't just admit it. You will just move the goalpost again and again in your effort to hide your disgust of the science of finding the age of Earth.
Your motivation about the abiogenesis post was to prove the impossibility of life forming naturally without help from a deity. That is also clearly a religious stance and you for instance, ask me, a hardware expert to comment on organic chemistry when the only training I had was chem 101 and 102 with lab exercises in titration, totally basic stuff. You ask me to comment on that, maybe you want my opinion or some such but that is all it ever could be. I already gave you my stance.
Your obvious stance is not that you are willing to discuss organic chemistry but that you have an overriding agenda to prove most of science wrong, like the age of Earth science based on nuclear decays and such, using the exact same scientific method that produces results in cancer research, rocketry, math and such but the ones that touch on your beloved young earth, all of those are now worthless because you SAY they are.

@sonhouse said
Your prejudices against science are showing now, not mine. You clearly are dissing any idea of an old Earth. But you won't just admit it. You will just move the goalpost again and again in your effort to hide your disgust of the science of finding the age of Earth.
Your motivation about the abiogenesis post was to prove the impossibility of life forming naturally without h ...[text shortened]... nes that touch on your beloved young earth, all of those are now worthless because you SAY they are.

Clearly the only one here concerned about a young earth is you. My complaint has nothing to do with age, only processes and probabilities with endless time available if required. You it seems are fixated on a meaningless side issue pretending it matters over the topic I have brought up.

@kellyjay said
Clearly the only one here concerned about a young earth is you. My complaint has nothing to do with age, only processes and probabilities with endless time available if required. You it seems are fixated on a meaningless side issue pretending it matters over the topic I have brought up.

You said you want to discuss the reactions of organic chemistry and I already told you I have no insight into that science.

So tell me why the motivation to destroy that science has nothing to do with your stance Earth is 6000 years old?

Your whole POINT is to cast doubt on the science of life origins and there is nothing you can say that will show that in a better light.

That is why you chose to have chemists and physicists posted here in science instead of a real symposium on the latest research on OOL.

In your world it will not do to have real science shown by experts in their field but by experts in related fields with an ax to grind.

Do you think we are so stupid as to not see that quite clearly? They were not there to say how obvious it was life came from mud and lightning or whatever, there were there to say 'folks, we have just shown that is fukking IMPOSSIBLE, therefore GODIDIT'.

When that is the bottom line I don't give a rat's ass what their lecture is about because they have an obvious ax to grind.

So if you want to talk about REAL research into OOL, post a symposium on the latest research, not some unrelated expert talking in a fukking church.

@sonhouse said
You said you want to discuss the reactions of organic chemistry and I already told you I have no insight into that science.

So tell me why the motivation to destroy that science has nothing to do with your stance Earth is 6000 years old?

Your whole POINT is to cast doubt on the science of life origins and there is nothing you can say that will show that in a better l ...[text shortened]... OOL, post a symposium on the latest research, not some unrelated expert talking in a fukking church.

You still are the only one bringing up a 6000 year old earth, not me! Is that your only defense against what you think might be a scary prospect, talking about these things with nothing but test results and projections from data? Can you have a conversation without motivation mongering? Your main argument it seems is limited to casting doubt on others due to a religious doctrine, one that I have to add, has nothing to do with the topic being discussed?

As far as I’m concern you can have endless time to do what you think needs to happen! I don’t think any amount of time you ask for will solve your issues, since there isn’t a process vehicle that can get you from A to Z, non-life to life, under any normal natural environment, or for that matter even a tilted one favoring your theories over time.

The only one here casting doubt on science of life origins is you, as you keep avoiding the topic and wanting to change it to a religious discussion. You keep saying you know nothing about chemistry, then you say if you are going to talk about it, it needs to be these topics not those.

If your theories cannot stand up to anyone’s critical analysis, why believe in it? Is your faith, trust, or confidence so fragile you cringe at the thought of it being questioned? How would you know if anyone can say anything that might cast a better light on it, if you refuse to watch them?

I chose chemists to talk about abiogenesis, because before life there was only chemicals, as was pointed out in one of the lectures, which you would have known had you taken the time to watch. The thing about chemicals is they are what they are, we can test them today, tomorrow and see the same results. We should be able to replicate anything we think could have happened in the past. Chemicals remain the same and their reactions remain consistent. With them there is no need to project what may have happen in a living system undergoing natural selection, with chemical reactions they are all testable in the here and now.

With respect to “real science” according to you, can it only be done by those of like mind as yourself, just by those that see the universe as you? You think science cannot be done by those who see the world differently than you? You think all science can only be done by those without a god involved in their lives, so Newton and others really didn’t do real science either?

You are the only one here with an ax to grind, and you are the only one here concern with the GODIDIT proposition in this discussion. You are the one with an ax to grind, it is so obvious it isn’t funny. Here you are accusing others of the very thing you are doing here. You misrepresent people’s points, motivation, and you act as if you can read minds and know why people are doing and saying things.

@kellyjay said
You still are the only one bringing up a 6000 year old earth, not me! Is that your only defense against what you think might be a scary prospect, talking about these things with nothing but test results and projections from data? Can you have a conversation without motivation mongering? Your main argument it seems is limited to casting doubt on others due to a religious doct ...[text shortened]... s, motivation, and you act as if you can read minds and know why people are doing and saying things.

I bed to differ with you about age of Earth. You are the one who said you were a
'Young Earther' and we all know that means a 6000 year old Earth which you continue to deny. So, being in that camp, the only thing you will do is work your agenda which is to prove life cannot come from mud and lightning or some such natural set of events.

You can sugar coat it all you want but that is the bottom line and you by now cannot bring yourself around to just say it.
You have a Young Earth stance and that stance does not belong in Science, it belongs in Spiritual.

@sonhouse said
I bed to differ with you about age of Earth. You are the one who said you were a
'Young Earther' and we all know that means a 6000 year old Earth which you continue to deny. So, being in that camp, the only thing you will do is work your agenda which is to prove life cannot come from mud and lightning or some such natural set of events.

You can sugar coat it all you wan ...[text shortened]...
You have a Young Earth stance and that stance does not belong in Science, it belongs in Spiritual.

I have said I am a young earth creationist since day one which is what around 15 years ago. It is not a secret nor is it for me a point of argument, if it is true or not does not affect any other beliefs of mine. You would fold up and crash and burn if it could be proven. I don’t think it can be so it is a pointless point in my estimation.

Chemistry not the young earth was and is the topic.

@kellyjay said
I have said I am a young earth creationist since day one which is what around 15 years ago. It is not a secret nor is it for me a point of argument, if it is true or not does not affect any other beliefs of mine. You would fold up and crash and burn if it could be proven. I don’t think it can be so it is a pointless point in my estimation.

Chemistry not the young earth was and is the topic.

I think it is the impossibility of natural chemistry to be able to construct life is your main issue.
Why can't you accept Earth is billions of years old? To deny that is to deny a big chunk of human science.
If it was proven life started on earth in a mudflat hit by lightning or some such natural set of events, would you all of a sudden be convinced and change your stance? I don't think you can. You would just dis the science involved and repeat GODIDIT, my ears are plugged I can't hear you....

@sonhouse said
I think it is the impossibility of natural chemistry to be able to construct life is your main issue.
Why can't you accept Earth is billions of years old? To deny that is to deny a big chunk of human science.
If it was proven life started on earth in a mudflat hit by lightning or some such natural set of events, would you all of a sudden be convinced and change your stan ...[text shortened]... You would just dis the science involved and repeat GODIDIT, my ears are plugged I can't hear you....

BTW, here is a new article on limiting the amount of planets that may harbor life, in the goldilocks zone is not enough:

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-narrows-advanced-life-universe.html