Questions about origins of life timeline

[SkyWriting]

Your samples are measured for the quantity of specific isotopes using mass spectrometers that are standardized as much as any scale, and that is used to determine the age of the sample. The same for the decay rates of isotopes. These are determined by direct measurements, not guess work.

The age is the guessing part. I would need a standardized sample of
the same material kept at the same conditions, with a known date for comparison.

 

[Loudmouth]

The age is the guessing part.

What makes it a guess?

I would need a standardized sample of
the same material kept at the same conditions, with a known date for comparison.

They don't measure dates. They measure the concentration of isotopes in the sample, and they do use standardized samples for that with known concentrations of the isotope being measured.

 

[dad]

And this logic is no different to proving elephants don't exist because you can't see one in your kitchen.

No, I just do not believe in the pink elephant of the unproven same state past that so called science rides!!!

 

[Kylie]

My explanation for that phenomenon is that scientists calibrate their machines to agree with each another.

And once again you show that you have no idea how it actually works...

 

[AV1611VET]

And once again you show that you have no idea how it actually works...

Of course not.

That's why we Christians are now starting to lose case after case, and have to sit back while the Bible is taken out of school, Ten Commandments are taken down, abortion goes legal, etc. and so on.

But there's coming Someone Who is going to put an end to all this .. and soon!

And the Bible calls it our "blessed hope."

 

[TLK Valentine]

Of course not.

That's why we Christians are now starting to lose case after case, and have to sit back while the Bible is taken out of school, Ten Commandments are taken down, abortion goes legal, etc. and so on.

IOW, you make ignorance your foundation for everything you do, and marvel that it doesn't work.

But there's coming Someone Who is going to put an end to all this .. and soon!

And the Bible calls it our "blessed hope."

Sounds more like "passive-aggressive revenge fantasy."

 

[SkyWriting]

People have been freed from death row because of forensic evidence. The facts say otherwise.

The problem is that you don't want your faith based beliefs about the past to be challenged by things like facts.

That is not because forensics can figure out what happened (Read what the expert says and you deny) It's because forensics can rule in or rule out a SPECIFIC event that was observed by a witness.

The witness says ""This" is what happened, under "such" conditions." Forensic can DUPLICATE THE CONDITIONS and determine if the witness is being truthful or not. Bullet trajectory, blood stains, DNA transfer, these are all REPRODUCIBLE events that can be reexamined such as bullets fired from the SAME gun, etc.

Forensics cannot determine exactly what happened. But it CAN rule out specific possibilities that can land one in jail or not. Still, a very very non-scientific person ALWAYS makes the final decision. Science never ever does.

As many times as I bring this subject up.....not one person has documented any objection with any supporting source.
And I often provide all the research needed to properly rebuke me.
Steps of the Scientific Method

Speaking of facts.

 

[SkyWriting]

I think your posts boil down to this one assertion. So lets us start with Geology. Tell me how scientists in the field of geology can do scientific work without being able to deal with past events?

They usually are quite clueless, absolutely clueless about past events.

Just ask them to examine any geologic structure and you'll get 10 to 20 interpretations about how it formed.

Oh.
To answer your question, they can scientifically do what ever they can do. But can they "see" into the past?
Nope. They can write "science" fictions about what they imagine. And the fiction adapts constantly as new facts come in.
But it is never non-fiction.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is not because forensics can figure out what happened (Read what the expert says and you deny) It's because forensics can rule in or rule out a SPECIFIC event that was observed by a witness.

Forensic scientists can use evidence to determine guilt or innocence when there is no witness to the crime.

The witness says ""This" is what happened, under "such" conditions." Forensic can DUPLICATE THE CONDITIONS and determine if the witness is being truthful or not.

What conditions are they duplicating when they use DNA fingerprinting in rape cases?

As many times as I bring this subject up.....not one person has documented any objection with any supporting source.
And I often provide all the research needed to properly rebuke me.
Steps of the Scientific Method

Speaking of facts.

Which step in the scientific method requires you to observe the hypothesis?

In the scientific method, what is required to be repeatable?

 

[Loudmouth]

They usually are quite clueless, absolutely clueless about past events.

False. You just want them to be clueless.

 

[PsychoSarah]

They usually are quite clueless, absolutely clueless about past events.

Just ask them to examine any geologic structure and you'll get 10 to 20 interpretations about how it formed.

Oh.
To answer your question, they can scientifically do what ever they can do. But can they "see" into the past?
Nope. They can write "science" fictions about what they imagine. And the fiction adapts constantly as new facts come in.
But it is never non-fiction.

10-20 different interpretations, compared to the thousands of interpretations of the bible?

 

[dad]

10-20 different interpretations, compared to the thousands of interpretations of the bible?

Name say, even 1000 interpretations of Jesus rising from the dead? He either did or did not! That makes 2 interpretations..belief or unbelief.

How about Moses? Name 1000 interpretations of how many commandments there were on the stone written by the finger of God!?

Even if we look at the creation debate, I don't think there are that many opposing interpretations from bible believers! Once we toss out the bible and Genesis and do not believe it in any real way, THEN, they can have thousands of interpretations. For people that actually believe Jesus created this universe in the beginning as the bible says, there really are not many opposing ideas that I have seen. The big bang and godless evolution does not and cannot fit into the creation of Scripture, in the New Testament, or the Old. Period. That is unbelief. Deception.

Whenever you see someone talking about prehistoric man from monkey sort of thing, recognize it for what it is.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Name say, even 1000 interpretations of Jesus rising from the dead? He either did or did not! That makes 2 interpretations..belief or unbelief.

How about Moses? Name 1000 interpretations of how many commandments there were on the stone written by the finger of God!?

Even if we look at the creation debate, I don't think there are that many opposing interpretations from bible believers! Once we toss out the bible and Genesis and do not believe it in any real way, THEN, they can have thousands of interpretations. For people that actually believe Jesus created this universe in the beginning as the bible says, there really are not many opposing ideas that I have seen. The big bang and godless evolution does not and cannot fit into the creation of Scripture, in the New Testament, or the Old. Period. That is unbelief. Deception.

Whenever you see someone talking about prehistoric man from monkey sort of thing, recognize it for what it is.

List of Christian denominations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously, it is a lot.

 

[Kylie]

Of course not.

That's why we Christians are now starting to lose case after case, and have to sit back while the Bible is taken out of school, Ten Commandments are taken down, abortion goes legal, etc. and so on.

But there's coming Someone Who is going to put an end to all this .. and soon!

And the Bible calls it our "blessed hope."

So let me get this straight...

You come in and start talking about science and saying that evolution is wrong...

But you don't know what science is...

You don't know what science works...

You don't know what science says...

You intentionally remain ignorant about science...

And yet you think you have the right answer?

Really?

I mean, that's like me coming in and saying that the Bible is wrong, even though I think Jesus is a migrant from Mexico.

Really, AV, when you embrace ignorance as readily as you do and yet claim you have the right answer, does it really surprise you when we don't take you seriously?

 

[AV1611VET]

So let me get this straight...

Okay.

You come in and start talking about science and saying that evolution is wrong...

Correct.

But you don't know what science is...

Correct.

You don't know what science works...

If you meant "how science works" ... correct.

If you meant "what science works" ... correct.

You don't know what science says...

Correct.

You intentionally remain ignorant about science...

Somewhat correct.

And yet you think you have the right answer?

Correct.

Really?

Really.

I don't have to know the who, what, when, how, where, and why of something to think it is wrong.

Believing its antithesis is enough for me.

Since I believe in instant creation, I don't need to know that evolution is a change in alleles of a population over time to believe it is wrong.

Put another way ... a little child should be able to tell a Richard Dawkins that evolution is wrong.

I mean, that's like me coming in and saying that the Bible is wrong, even though I think Jesus is a migrant from Mexico.

If you came in here and said that the Bible was wrong because you thought Jesus was a migrant from Mexico, I would understand more than if you came in here and said the Bible was correct because Jesus was a migrant from Mexico.

How many scientific methodists here tell me my faith is wrong, based not on understanding it, but based on believing its antithesis: science?

Really, AV, when you embrace ignorance as readily as you do and yet claim you have the right answer, does it really surprise you when we don't take you seriously?

Not at all.

If you don't think you guys are just as ignorant of even basic doctrine as we are of science, yet you claim science gives you the right answers, it doesn't surprise me at all when we don't take you seriously.

At least when I discuss your philosophy, I try to use the correct terms.

Do you do the same?

Calling miracles "magic" and creatio ex nihilo "poofing" doesn't exactly tell me you know what you're dealing with.

 

[Kylie]

Okay.

Correct.

Correct.

If you meant "how science works" ... correct.

If you meant "what science works" ... correct.

Correct.

Somewhat correct.

Correct.

Really.

So how can you say science is wrong when you know nothing about science?

I don't have to know the who, what, when, how, where, and why of something to think it is wrong.

Believing its antithesis is enough for me.

Since I believe in instant creation, I don't need to know that evolution is a change in alleles of a population over time to believe it is wrong.

Isn't that like saying, "I believe the sky is pink with yellow polka dots. I know you say it is blue, but you are wrong. I don't need to actually look at the sky to know that you are wrong, and I don't need to look at the sky to know that I am right. It's enough I believe it is pink with yellow polka dots, and that proves you wrong."

Put another way ... a little child should be able to tell a Richard Dawkins that evolution is wrong.

And a little child can tell Richard Dawkins that a bicycle has triangular wheels. They'd still be wrong.

If you came in here and said that the Bible was wrong because you thought Jesus was a migrant from Mexico, I would understand more than if you came in here and said the Bible was correct because Jesus was a migrant from Mexico.

How many scientific methodists here tell me my faith is wrong, based not on understanding it, but based on believing its antithesis: science?

You just don't get it. You think that a scientist's "belief" in science is the same as your belief in your religious ideas? It's completely different. A "belief" in science is based on evidence, something which you have none of. It's not faith at all. It's no a belief. It is seeing the evidence and being unable to deny it. If I was to meet you, do you think you could look at me and deny the fact that I am a woman rather than a man? Of course not. Can you look at the sun on a bright day and deny the fact that it is bright? Of course not. Can you step under the running shower and deny the fact that you are wet? Of course not. And likewise, can any rational person look at the evidence for evolution and deny the fact that it occurs? Of course not.

Not at all.

If you don't think you guys are just as ignorant of even basic doctrine as we are of science, yet you claim science gives you the right answers, it doesn't surprise me at all when we don't take you seriously.

And yet you are wrong. How many atheists are there who were once believers? I know there are many. How can you claim that they did not understand basic doctrine?

It seems to me that what you call "doctrine" is really just "whatever misrepresentations of science you need to think in order to say it is wrong."

At least when I discuss your philosophy, I try to use the correct terms.

No you don't. You;ve said many times that you are happy to remain ignorant of science. How can you know how to use scientific terms properly when you admit yourself you don't want to learn anything about science?

Do you do the same?

Well, I've actually read the Bible, does that count.

Calling miracles "magic" and creatio ex nihilo "poofing" doesn't exactly tell me you know what you're dealing with.

Pot, kettle, black.

 

[AV1611VET]

So how can you say science is wrong when you know nothing about science?

Let's get off this "science is wrong" kick, shall we?

I don't really claim "science is wrong".

More accurately, I claim "science can take a hike."

And only if it disagrees with the Bible.

I'm on record here many times as claiming I believe in 95% of science.

Isn't that like saying, "I believe the sky is pink with yellow polka dots. I know you say it is blue, but you are wrong. I don't need to actually look at the sky to know that you are wrong, and I don't need to look at the sky to know that I am right. It's enough I believe it is pink with yellow polka dots, and that proves you wrong."

If you tell me you believe the sky is pink with yellow polka dots, and I say it is blue, I would expect you to come back with something like:

That's your opinion.

Anything else, and I'm going to suspect you have a problem.

If you asked a blind man what color he believes the sky is, and he says RED, what would you think?

And a little child can tell Richard Dawkins that a bicycle has triangular wheels. They'd still be wrong.

That's nice.

You just don't get it.

No -- you don't get it.

I have made the claim here I would kiss the feet of a scientist before I kiss the feet of a theologian any day.

But evidently you, a johnny-come-lately here, prefer to listen to all the misrepresentations of the others as to my take on science; and have taken my silence as an admission that I hate science and all science is wrong.

Suit yourself ... because I'm not planning on defending myself every time some Tom, Dick, or Harry accuses me of being anti-science.

If you want to believe them, that's your prerogative; but don't come to me telling me I've got some kind of problem ... when the problem is on your end.

You think that a scientist's "belief" in science is the same as your belief in your religious ideas?

Yes I do -- and for the record, I don't believe I'm a religious person, as I define "religion" as a set of beliefs that arise when the Bible is resisted.

But I'm sure you couldn't care less.

You'll believe anything that makes you look right and me wrong.

It's completely different.

You're entitled to your opinion.

A "belief" in science is based on evidence, something which you have none of.

For the record, I believe your religion is not "science" but "scientism," of which Google has a short but very poignant definition that ... to me ... fits you guys to a tee.

It's not faith at all.

Well, since I define "faith" as "believing something, even when science says otherwise," I define your faith as "believing something, even when the Bible says otherwise."

So guess what? I'm going to disagree with your statement.

Big surprise, eh?

It's no a belief.

Says you.

It is seeing the evidence and being unable to deny it.

Oh, I bet you would drop it like a hot potato if more evidence trumped your current evidence.

Even if you had to rig a vote to do it.

If I was to meet you, do you think you could look at me and deny the fact that I am a woman rather than a man?

No.

Of course not.

Okay.

Can you look at the sun on a bright day and deny the fact that it is bright?

No.

Of course not.

Okay.

Can you step under the running shower and deny the fact that you are wet? Of course not.

Is this line of questioning going somewhere?

And likewise, can any rational person look at the evidence for evolution and deny the fact that it occurs? Of course not.

Then I won't look at the evidence ... the evidence can take a hike.

 

[EternalDragon]

And likewise, can any rational person look at the evidence for evolution and deny the fact that it occurs? Of course not.

What evidence exactly? Similarities? That is about all evolution has as "evidence". Hardly compelling and could equally be evidence for ID.

Speciation within kinds does occur, however, if that is what you are talking about.

Otherwise, any rational person should be able to see through the assumed stories being propagated within the evolution theory.

 

[lasthero]

What evidence exactly? Similarities? That is about all evolution has as "evidence".

It's not just similarities, it's the pattern of similarities.

Hardly compelling and could equally be evidence for ID.

What couldn't be evidence for ID? It seems to me that if you have a designer with unknown properties and motives, you could say anything was evidence for him and there's absolutely no way to prove it wrong.

Speciation within kinds does occur, however, if that is what you are talking about.

What is a kind?

 

[EternalDragon]

It's not just similarities, it's the pattern of similarities.

Oh, a pattern. Right.

What couldn't be evidence for ID? It seems to me that if you have a designer with unknown properties and motives, you could say anything was evidence for him and there's absolutely no way to prove it wrong.

You could try to present a theory that something came from nothing or that complex genetic structures all the way up to the human brain and through that brain evolution, ipods, computers and airplanes were created. All by random chance.

What is a kind?

What is a family? A genus? A species?

Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia