“This could change how science perceives the life on earth began and how the planet has evolved”

[GospelS]

Indeed. It does not even exclude the possibility we were created this morning with all the imbedded memories and evidence pointing to it.

Thank you. Yes. It doesn’t even exclude that possibility as well. God created a new me this new day with all the imbedded memories and evidence pointing to it and even more grace for today. So it’s okay to cherry pick what aligns with the scriptures, but we cannot concede earth with a certain self life since I don’t have that stated in the scriptures.

 

[BobRyan]

And according to the article earth was 3,2 billions of years old at that point. So do we cherrry pick the article to pieces or do we concede earth with selflife of billions of years ?

The article "can show" in the lab - clay taking up O18 -- so not a matter of "wild imagination" or runaway inference.

However the article cannot "go back in time to find that only at 3 billion years" is that the case.

Critical thinking is needed when blind faith evolutionism is being inserted by the author of the article.

What they cannot insert is the ratio of O18 to O16 today or the ratio in the rock or the fact that clay takes up the O18 because inserting it would fail if obseration in nature/the-lab did not bear that out

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Critical thinking is needed

Great. What is the evidence for creation ? If you have nothing how can you be so convinced that it is true. Think about that critically.

 

[BobRyan]

Great. What is the evidence for creation ?

Your eye.

If you think that dust gas and rock will eventually produce a horse given enough time and chance, with just-so stories all the way up "mount improbable" (As atheist evolutionists like Dawkins called it) -- mixed in with "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" (as atheist evolutionists like Colin Patterson stated it) - you are of course free to "believe" that.

But the OP here is correct - the article is not describing an outcome that blind-faith evolutionism would have "predicted"

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Your eye.

So argument from incredulity

Argument from Incredulity

Really new and refreshing talking point.

 

[pitabread]

If you think that dust gas and rock will eventually produce a horse given enough time and chance, with just-so stories all the way up "mount improbable" (As atheist evolutionists like Dawkins called it) -- mixed in with "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" (as atheist evolutionists like Colin Patterson stated it) - you are of course free to "believe" that.

This is just an argument from incredulity, which is one of the least impressive forms of argument. It is fundamentally an emotional and not a rational argument.

Do you any actual evidence for creation that isn't based on an emotional argument?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
If you think that dust gas and rock will eventually produce a horse given enough time and chance, with just-so stories all the way up "mount improbable" (As atheist evolutionists like Dawkins called it) -- mixed in with "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" (as atheist evolutionists like Colin Patterson stated it) - you are of course free to "believe" that.

This is just an argument from incredulity

So then you are claiming it would be unwise to believe in such things?? I am not going to differ with you on that point -- because I also believe that would be unwise.

Do you any actual evidence for creation that isn't based on an emotional argument?

your eye... is that "emotional" in your view - or is it your claim that dust, rocks, gas and sunlight have the ability to come up with one? Do you think that is a "property of matter"?? Something in the periodic chart?

 

[Speedwell]

BobRyan said: ↑
If you think that dust gas and rock will eventually produce a horse given enough time and chance, with just-so stories all the way up "mount improbable" (As atheist evolutionists like Dawkins called it) -- mixed in with "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" (as atheist evolutionists like Colin Patterson stated it) - you are of course free to "believe" that.



So then you are claiming it would be unwise to believe in such things?? I am not going to differ with you on that point -- because I also believe that would be unwise.



your eye... is that "emotional" in your view - or is it your claim that dust, rocks, gas and sunlight have the ability to come up with one? Do you think that is a "property of matter"?? Something in the periodic chart?

No, it's a property of stochastic processes.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you any actual evidence for creation that isn't based on an emotional argument?

your eye... is that "emotional" in your view - or is it your claim that dust, rocks, gas and sunlight have the ability to come up with one? Do you think that is a "property of matter"?? Something in the periodic chart?

No, it's a property of stochastic processes.

A lot of rocks in my backyard have failed to produce an eye - using that stochastic process

Question for since science (real science) is observable, repeatable and falsifiable -- do you have any repeatable examples of rocks producing an eye? observable examples of it? falsifiable examples?

or are we back to "belief in" evolutionism's doctrine on origins?

 

[Speedwell]

A lot of rocks in my backyard have failed to produce an eye - using that stochastic process

That's because rocks don't reproduce with randomly distributed heritable variation subject to natural selection. No stochastic process is in operation.

 

[BobRyan]

That's because rocks don't reproduce with randomly distributed heritable variation subject to natural selection. No stochastic process is in operation.

Well there lots of random events in my backyard all the same.

(And the term stochastic does not limit itself to "heritable" or "natural selection").

With "no God" --- you start with "nada" but for the sake of the argument - we give you the starting point of "rock" (rock, dust and gas if you wish). Begin your "stochastic process yields 'eye' in the lab" science... at will

(By manipulating temp and pressure science projects simulate compressed time when it comes to "objects")

If you need to "simulate" ten's of 1000's of generations for an organism... "then bacteria turns into eye via stochastic process" is what you are looking for -- tons of generations of "observations" are available.

 

[Speedwell]

Well there lots of random events in my backyard all the same.

But it takes more than just random events for evolution to occur.

There must be a population of self-replicating entities. The entities must reproduce with randomly distributed variation in the offspring. It's not a process in which molecules haphazardly come together to form novel structures.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you any actual evidence for creation that isn't based on an emotional argument?

your eye... is that "emotional" in your view - or is it your claim that dust, rocks, gas and sunlight have the ability to come up with one? Do you think that is a "property of matter"?? Something in the periodic chart?

No, it's a property of stochastic processes.

A lot of rocks in my backyard have failed to produce an eye - using that stochastic process

Question for since science (real science) is observable, repeatable and falsifiable -- do you have any repeatable examples of rocks producing an eye? observable examples of it? falsifiable examples?

or are we back to "belief in" evolutionism's doctrine on origins?

But it takes more than just random events for evolution to occur.

Agreed ... it takes a miracle.

 

[Speedwell]

Agreed ... it takes a miracle.

Well, it certainly takes something other than evolution, which depends on the existence of self-replicating entities. Where did they come from? That's the question you should be asking.

 

[pitabread]

So then you are claiming it would be unwise to believe in such things?? I am not going to differ with you on that point -- because I also believe that would be unwise.

No, that is not at all what I am saying.

You were asked for evidence for creation. Your response is to simply express incredulity about what you consider the alternative.

That is using an argument from incredulity, which is a) not actually evidence of anything, and b) a poor form of argument.

That's it.

 

[pitabread]

deleted

 

[BobRyan]

You were asked for evidence for creation.

And I repeatedly state that the "Eye" is a great example of something that rocks, gas, and dust cannot do -- not even given enough random chances, unlikely stories, hopeful monsters, "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" as Colin Patterson remarked when asked how in the world this story telling found in evolutionism has been accepted.

Your response is to simply express incredulity about what you consider the alternative.

I state that rocks, gas and dust cannot come up with an eye -- so far nobody on this thread has shown them doing it.

If someone says "can you point me to some evidence that there is a computer engineer" -- and I point to the computer sitting on the table, then someone at the back of the room says "that is not actually evidence of anything and it is a poor form of argument".

To which I respond "you are not paying attention to the details in this discussion"

===================================

Option 2

Someone says "can you prove that rabbits can fly" and then I have a friend behind the curtain "throw a rabbit across the room".

That person can then respond "that does not prove the rabbit can fly - see I too can throw the rabbit - it is just throwing a rabbit... it is not a rabbit flying".

They demonstrate their point when they show another way to explain how it is that the rabbit flew across the room other than -- "rabbits can fly".

 

[Subduction Zone]

BobRyan said: ↑
If you think that dust gas and rock will eventually produce a horse given enough time and chance, with just-so stories all the way up "mount improbable" (As atheist evolutionists like Dawkins called it) -- mixed in with "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" (as atheist evolutionists like Colin Patterson stated it) - you are of course free to "believe" that.



So then you are claiming it would be unwise to believe in such things?? I am not going to differ with you on that point -- because I also believe that would be unwise.



your eye... is that "emotional" in your view - or is it your claim that dust, rocks, gas and sunlight have the ability to come up with one? Do you think that is a "property of matter"?? Something in the periodic chart?

Please, just so stories are all that creationists have. Concepts in the sciences have to be tested and confirmed. Now you may not be willing to learn how we know what we know, but that does not mean that scientists have the flaws of creationists. If you want to know what we know why not ask and try to learn?

 

[Gene2memE]

And I repeatedly state that the "Eye" is a great example of something that rocks, gas, and dust cannot do -- not even given enough random chances, unlikely stories, hopeful monsters, "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" as Colin Patterson remarked when asked how in the world this story telling found in evolutionism has been accepted.

I state that rocks, gas and dust cannot come up with an eye -- so far nobody on this thread has shown them doing it.

The eye and its development happens to be one of the better studied topics in evolutionary biology. The evolutionary history of the eye is reasonably well understood, although there are still lots of unresolved questions.

Here's a pretty fair overview on what we know, which would serve as a good springboard for a deeper diver.

However, nowhere in any of the reading (at least that I've done), does anyone suggest that "rocks, gas and dust" evolved into an eye. Like most things in evolution, it was a modification of earlier tools used for different purposes. In the case of the eye, it seems to be pigment cells, which themselves are modified from elsewhere.

The best available evidence is that the most basic functional eyes evolved somewhere in the 30 million years before the Cambrian Explosion. The evolution of basic photoreceptors may have been one of a series of causal factors in setting the Cambrian.

Here's a really neat (if long) investigation into the stepwise requirements to develop the photoreception and sensory signalling system needed as a basis for more complicated eyes.

 

[klutedavid]

There Was a Time When Earth Was All Water, With no Continents And no Coronavirus

That was before the first day even occurred according to the Genesis account.