First of all your assumption that life beginning with self-replicating molecules is likely is not anywhere in evidence either
, and yes, we do not have the earliest rocks or material from Earth's history until the first Cyanobacteria.
Why would you even think about reporting him? why not just tell him why he is wrong? explain to him why it is you never give a straight answer to 95% of questions you're asked? why not enlighten him instead of reporting him.Hitch, how would you like to be reported?
So... Got good evidence? Let's see it.
We can all play this game!Like I said, there are hundreds, probably thousands, of reports throughout the 19th century in America.
1897
You can read through all the original reports yourself if you want, they're all compiled together here, sorted by state in North America.
http://greaterancestors.com/greater-humans/
You could certainly say some of them were exaggerations or flat out hoaxes, but in my opinion it is quite a stretch to say the enormous record of these discoveries was nothing but a collective imagination.
Though this is probably a discussion for another thread.
It's just a very big pity that none of those incredible skeletal finds have found their way down to us so we will never know if it was a hoax, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.You could certainly say some of them were exaggerations or flat out hoaxes, but in my opinion it is quite a stretch to say the enormous record of these discoveries was nothing but a collective imagination.
Ya ... all 50 states and the District of Columbia would be in on this hoax, wouldn't they?It's just a very big pity that none of those incredible skeletal finds have found their way down to us so we will never know if it was a hoax, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Same could be said of UFO's.Ya ... all 50 states and the District of Columbia would be in on this hoax, wouldn't they?
Do you think aliens are beaming messages into our brains from telephone poles at night?Same could be said of UFO's.
There do seem to be fashions for hoaxes, big skeletons in the 19th, early 20th century. UFOs from the late 40's and 50's. One explanation for some of the big bone skeletons is simple misinterpretation of the bones, papers competing with each other, hoaxes such as the Cardiff Giant.Do you think aliens are beaming messages into our brains from telephone poles at night?
After all, some of them do hum.
And every bone in all fifty states and the District of Colombia has been checked and verified a hoax?One explanation for some of the big bone skeletons is simple misinterpretation of the bones, papers competing with each other, hoaxes such as the Cardiff Giant.
Unfortunately there is no credible evidence of these mythical Giants, old newspaper stories and old photos do not cut it, please pass me the scientific research, and the bones themselves. You are left with a conspiracy theory along the same lines as UFO's, chem trails and the illuminati.And every bone in all fifty states and the District of Colombia has been checked and verified a hoax?
Do you believe Jimmy Hoffa is buried in the endzone of the Kansas City Chiefs?
After all, they've been penalized for having too many men on the field before.
Maybe Thetans ordered all fifty states and the District of Columbia to destroy all physical evidence?Unfortunately there is no credible evidence of these mythical Giants,
I did not realise the Thetans were included in your edition of the bible, is it the Scientology edition?Maybe Thetans ordered all fifty states and the District of Columbia to destroy all physical evidence?
I think you're wrong here. "Calcified collagen fibres" is clearly talking about a mineralized tissue. The lower density and diagnostic structures don't mean that the tissue is soft, merely that those structures are preserved.
Extrapolation is not the same thing as speculation. Untreated blood vessels turned to ooz in days while the treated vessels were preserved two years later. Clearly iron has the power to preserve tissues. Schweitzer's experiment is a proof of concept, not the final answer and she did not present it as such, despite what Armitage claims. And Armitage's video is pretty bad. He starts by saying that the test is bogus because of the laboratory conditions, then by the end of the video he's claiming that iron doesn't actually preserve tissue which is objectively false. You can't honestly be convinced by his absurd argument that if iron could really preserve tissue he would already know about it and rich people would be using it to prolong their lives and therefore it must not have this property. Schweitzer's experiment proves that it does regardless of whether you accept the extrapolation. And the isolation of certain tissues from blood is basically irrelevant, if it is even true. He seems to be unaware that groundwater is often rich iron. I have worked on literally dozens of dinosaur specimens encased in and impregnated by ironstone. Ironstone is the result of copious amounts of iron in the groundwater so it is ridiculous to say
that any tissue would be isolated from a source of iron. It is empiracle fact that iron preserves tissue and that iron is common in environments where fossilization takes place. It does not therefore seem unreasonable that the structure of tissues could be preserved for far longer than previously supposed.
And again, Schweitzer's work is something new. It's just the beginning, not the final word. It is entirely likely, as is so often the case, that there is more than one process at work. Just because a new hypothesis is proposed to explain a new phenomenon doesn't make it ad hoc or invalid, particularly when the fundamental concept is backed up by empiracle observation.
Sorry, but this reads like a cop-out because you have not even bothered to explain why this analogy is not really analogous. Please state your case explicitly instead of brushing off the point entirely.
At least do me the courtesy of answering the simple question I posed in the context of the analogy itself: is it more parsimonious to start with the idea that all the indications of cougars being present are valid and that the previous understanding of their distribution was flawed than to assume all those congruent observations are wrong? Yes or no?
Declaring that your suspicions beat equal weight to a practicing geologist does not make it so. In the end you justnkeep falling back on your unsubstantiated insistence, despite qualified testimony to the contrary which you have not even addressed let alone refuted, that contamination is assumed rather than identified.
And your point here ignores the fact that the idea of an old Earth had to overcome immense resistance from the mainstream young earth view.
I'm trying to see this vast continental conspiracy from your POV.I did not realise the Thetans were included in your edition of the bible, is it the Scientology edition?
Why not follow the rules and discuss the topics and issues rather than making remarks about the person? If you don't like the way I post and discuss those topics and discussions don't interact with me. It is really very simple.Why would you even think about reporting him? why not just tell him why he is wrong? explain to him why it is you never give a straight answer to 95% of questions you're asked? why not enlighten him instead of reporting him.
I can read so I know you are not good at giving answers to questions you're asked, why do you think that is?
Yes, that's what I was saying.
What you mean is we can't have evidence for the earliest life in the earliest rocks because the earliest life would have left no trace. That's one of the problems with trying to reconstruct how life started. But we can put together likely scenarios.
So let me get this straight, we can put together likely scenarios as long it is the "likely" ones that you agree with?
Yes it overcame a young-earth view with admittedly flawed uniformitarian assumptions. When it was realized their assumptions were wrong, nobody wanted to go back and question whether or not they were wrong about deep-time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?