Comets/Global Flood explained

[EternalDragon]

You didn't say the 'Proterozoic eon', you said the 'paleoproteroic era'. Those are different things.

I never said Paleoproteric era, ever. Once again, you are confused.
Conversing with you is beginning to get a little tedious.

 

[lasthero]

I never said Paleoproteric era, ever. Once again, you are confused.
Conversing with you is beginning to get a little tedious.

I meant 'paleoproterozoic'. Clumsy on a smartphone.

(The Paleoproterozoic is the oldest era by the way.)

And you did say it. And you were wrong. It's not the old era and we've found fossils before it.

 

[EternalDragon]

I meant 'paleoproterozoic'. Clumsy on a smartphone.

And you did say it. And you were wrong. It's not the old era and we've found fossils before it.

Oldest fossil era. It is what the link said. Get over it.

The Proterozoic Eon


The period of Earth's history that began 2.5 billion years ago and ended 542.0 million years ago is known as the Proterozoic, which is subdivided into three eras: the Paleoproterozoic (2.5 to 1.6 billion years ago), Mesoproterozoic (1.6 to 1 billion years ago), and Neoproterozoic (1 billion to 542.0 million years ago).* Many of the most exciting events in the history of the Earth and of life occurred during the Proterozoic — stable continents first appeared and began to accrete, a long process taking about a billion years. Also coming from this time are the first abundant fossils of living organisms, mostly bacteria and archaeans, but by about 1.8 billion years ago eukaryotic cells appear as fossils too.


The Proterozoic Eon

 

[lasthero]

Oldest fossil era. It is what the link said. Get over it.

It doesn't say that, ED.

Also coming from this time are the first abundant fossils of living organisms, mostly bacteria and archaeans

Why do you think they stuck the word 'abundant' in there, ED? Read your own link, it's right around the top.

The first traces of life appear nearly 3.5 billion years ago, in the early Archean. However, clearly identifiable fossils remain rare until the late Archean,

There were fossils found before the paleoproterozoic. They're extremely rare, yes, but they do exist. The link you keep throwing in my face says this, and you'd see that if you'd actually take the time to read the entire thing instead of picking out the parts you think support your argument.

 

[EternalDragon]

It doesn't say that, ED.

Why do you think they stuck the word 'abundant' in there, ED? Read your own link, it's right around the top.

There were fossils found before the paleoproterozoic. They're extremely rare, yes, but they do exist. The link you keep throwing in my face says this, and you'd see that if you'd actually take the time to read the entire thing instead of picking out the parts you think support your argument.

There was no argument. Before your several pages of confusion started
I was commenting on the fact that scientists say life started as algae/bacteria.
Which you then stated is not taught. Perhaps you are the one that needs to read that link.

 

[lasthero]

I was commenting on the fact that scientists say life started as algae/bacteria.

You did not say 'algae/bacteria'. I don't know why you keep insisting you said that initially, when all I have to do is cut and paste the start of all this were you clearly DIDN'T say that. You only added the 'bacteria' part on afterwards. But no matter how much you want to conflate the two, bacteria and algae are NOT the same thing. When scientists talk about algae, they are not talking about bacteria, nor vice versa. You can't just switch the word in a sentence with them and have that sentence mean the same thing, because they're different organisms.

That we all started out together as simple algae.

That is what you initially said, and that is what I initially corrected you on.

Which you then stated is not taught.

And I was right. No one ever said the LUA was algae. That's just something you made up.

By the way, you just won't admit that you were wrong about the era thing, can you? You physically can't do it, even when it's staring you in the face. It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Did they form a symbiotic relationship or not?

Yes, along with essentially all multicellular life and perhaps all eukaryotic life.

 

[EternalDragon]

You did not say 'algae/bacteria'. I don't know why you keep insisting you said that initially, when all I have to do is cut and paste the start of all this were you clearly DIDN'T say that. You only added the 'bacteria' part on afterwards. But no matter how much you want to conflate the two, bacteria and algae are NOT the same thing. When scientists talk about algae, they are not talking about bacteria, nor vice versa. You can't just switch the word in a sentence with them and have that sentence mean the same thing, because they're different organisms.

That is what you initially said, and that is what I initially corrected you on.

And I was right. No one ever said the LUA was algae. That's just something you made up.

By the way, you just won't admit that you were wrong about the era thing, can you? You physically can't do it, even when it's staring you in the face. It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

I never said the two were the same. I was talking about life origins of
life which is still being investigated. By the way, here is an article where
they discuss "The essence of being a plant".

Eukaryotic Microalgae Genomics. The Essence of Being a Plant

The era where an abundance of identifiable fossils of the first plants
can be found in the Proterozoic era. At the very end of the Archean
a few fossils of the first plant life may be found here and there. They
are not sure. The first abundant Eukaryote life forms are found in
the Proterozoic era, of which I was meaning. Which is closer to where
they find the first living fossils. Which is why I mentioned that era,
which is why the link mentions that era as to where the first real,
identifiable fossils of the first life forms are found.

Notice the reference to "possible" and "Probable" fungus and algae
below from the Wiki.

Multicellular life is composed only of eukaryotic cells, and the earliest evidence for it is the Francevillian Group Fossils from 2,100 million years ago,[55] although specialization of cells for different functions first appears between 1,430 million years ago (a possible fungus) and 1,200 million years ago (a probable red alga).

Paleontology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(You should probably carefully read those links so as not get confused again.)

 

[SkyWriting]

The Global Flood was much more that just water rising. It was a massive upheaval of the earth and created many features on the earth for which secular science has no answer such as the 40,000 mile long mid-oceanic ridge, miles of sedimentary layers laid down in almost perfectly flat layers with no erosion or plant growth between these layers, and so on. When the fountains of the great deep burst forth (creating the 40,000 mile ocean ridges) it launched a massive amount of material and water into space creating what we now call comets, asteroids and meteors. God did not create a world with deadly space objects, a moon with massive impact craters nor dust and microbes that pollute outer space. That would hardly be, as God said, “very good.”

I often accuse Scientists of creating large fictions from tiny facts
and your storytelling is no less guilty of imagining what suits your
sensibilities.

 

[lasthero]

I never said the two were the same.

You said they were synonymous. That's what 'synonymous' typically means.

I was talking about life origins of
life which is still being investigated.

Everything in science is 'still being investigated'.

They
are not sure.

Not sure...of what? That the fossils are actually fossils?

Which is closer to where
they find the first living fossils.

Fossils are dead.

The first abundant Eukaryote life forms are found in
the Proterozoic era, of which I was meaning.

Really? That's what you meant when you just said this:

(The Paleoproterozoic is the oldest era by the way.)

Whatever. Next time you might want to clearly state what you mean up front, because when you do it this way, it's impossible to tell you apart from a dishonest shiv who's just moving the goalposts to avoid having to admit he was wrong about something.

Notice the reference to "possible" and "Probable" fungus and algae

And your point is...what? Because they don't express 100% certainty, you can just dismiss what they suggest out of hand? Everything is tentative in science, ED.

And you still haven't shown that anyone claims the LUA was algae. Are you ever going to admit to fabricating that?

 

[Split Rock]

I often accuse Scientists of creating large fictions from tiny facts
and your storytelling is no less guilty of imagining what suits your
sensibilities.

You know, I don't agree with you very often here... but you are spot on with this guy.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

And you guys don't?
...
Christian
miracles
faith
...

You can't blame us for those three AV. Every Christian has a different meaning for each of those.

 

[EternalDragon]

You can't blame us for those three AV. Every Christian has a different meaning for each of those.

I sure don't and I don't know of any born again Christian that does.
If they do have different meanings for those, then they may not
know the bible as well as you'd think they should.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists here have different definitions for lots of words...

And you guys don't?

Christian
miracles
faith

You can't blame us for those three AV.

I take it you're agreeing with me?

I'd like to know why, then, you guys prefer Mr. Twain's definition of "faith,"* over any other?

* Faith is believing something you know ain't true. -Mark Twain

 

[PsychoSarah]

I take it you're agreeing with me?

I'd like to know why, then, you guys prefer Mr. Twain's definition of "faith,"* over any other?

* Faith is believing something you know ain't true. -Mark Twain

I don't agree with this particular statement by the guy, but I love Mark Twain and his snarky quotes

 

[Davian]

I take it you're agreeing with me?

I'd like to know why, then, you guys prefer Mr. Twain's definition of "faith,"* over any other?

* Faith is believing something you know ain't true. -Mark Twain

I do not agree with it, but perhaps he created it as a counterpart to the theist's "no such thing as an atheist" claim ("everyone" knows that God exists, but some lie about it because <insert vacuous assertion here>).