Questions about origins of life timeline

[Kylie]

Blind faith in a godless same state past. Worthless.

Blind faith in a mythical different state past. Even more worthless.

Speculation. Just admit you don't know and that the claim you made on genetics being a certain way was bulltoot.

Again, you prove that you know nothing about science.

"A team of scientists from Spain and the UK has determined that a certain curiously primitive group of flatworms are the oldest living ancestors to all "bilateral" animals-that is, those with a right and left side."

Flatworms Are Oldest Living Ancestors To Those Of Us With Right And Left Sides, Researchers Report In Science -- ScienceDaily


Read it and weep.

I'm sorry, but where do they say that this ANCESTOR of humans (which lived half a billion years ago) is a MODERN FLATWORM?

No. However, the grossly wrong tends to also be icky! That is like a fingerprint.

Like a geocentric universe? That was extremely wrong, yet not icky. And what about the ichneumon wasp? They are icky, but certainly they are not false.

Your belief that wrong is icky and icky is wrong is beyond ridiculous. It is wishful thinking and has no relevance to reality whatsoever.

You can't overrule God! He created, and that was not icky, despite what it may seem like to some.

There's plenty in nature that is icky. You're just ignorant of it.

Because we only have so much time for known changes to have happened! Elementary. For example Noah lived not that long ago, and all kinds were on that ark. All species had to have evolved after that.

Ah, of course. Assume the thing you want to prove in order to prove it. Do you get dizzy going around in these circles?

Right, the evil Satanic lies that oppose God and creation are aptly labeled evilution. Indeed.

You honestly have no idea just how childish that sounds, do you?

It cares what you think? Keep us posted.

No, I just don't care what you think. Reality doesn't care what anyone thinks. I, however, care deeply about what reality shows us. (You are no doubt now going to suggest that reality talks to me with a little voice or some other ridiculous notion, and miss my point entirely)

 

[EternalDragon]

The sun is not the same age as the earth -_- closer to 5 billion.

Why do you assume the life of 3.5 billion years ago would need as much life? It was basically simple bacteria and other single celled organisms. Plus, no ozone layer, so less energy from the sun was blocked by the atmosphere.

Also, even if the young sun was much fainter with light early on, it would still give off plenty of energy. But, to be clear, for at least half a billion years after life started, only single celled organisms existed. Perhaps the output of the sun began to increase enough that more complex things could take advantage of it, it could be a lot of things though. Besides, there are a lot of life forms which need no light to survive.

The more you guys try to explain things naturally, the bigger hole you dig for yourselves. You are presenting multiple paradoxes.

Our sun is at 40% luminosity right now. Back then it would have been at 10%. Or 75% less bright than today.

Faint young Sun paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[lasthero]

The more you guys try to explain things naturally, the bigger hole you dig for yourselves. You are presenting multiple paradoxes.

Our sun is at 40% luminosity right now. Back then it would have been at 10%. Or 75% less bright than today.

Faint young Sun paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You realize that, even if we take all this into account at face value, none of it invalidates radiometric dating or any of the multiple methods we've used to determine the earth is far older that 6,000 years?

 

[EternalDragon]

You realize that, even if we take all this into account at face value, none of it invalidates radiometric dating or any of the multiple methods we've used to determine the earth is far older that 6,000 years?

You realize that, detecting current isotope ratios says nothing about how and when the earth was formed? All it tells us is what the current isotope ratios are.

 

[Inan3]

"The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?"--Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"

There indeed is an extreme view of Genesis but not because Genesis is an extreme view but because it is misunderstood. It is all in the eye of the beholder.

Please, keep telling people you evangelize to that you have to swallow all of the nonsense you preach. Best way to keep them from becoming christians.

You know, LM, it is my experience that atheists are the 2nd most aggressive proselytizers of this generation. I recognize that is because of the aggressiveness of the power behind it but the agenda of the atheistic movement seems to stop at nothing to get their message accross. That includes infiltrating Christian Forums, the political arena, the education system, Scienceville, and the like. I wish that Christians had been so aggressive to bring the gospel of hope to the world. Perhaps then, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.

 

[Inan3]

"The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?"--Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"

There indeed is an extreme view of Genesis but not because Genesis is an extreme view but because it is misunderstood. It is all in the eye of the beholder.

Please, keep telling people you evangelize to that you have to swallow all of the nonsense you preach. Best way to keep them from becoming christians.

You know, LM, it is my experience that atheists are the 2nd most aggressive proselytizers of this generation. I recognize that is because of the aggressiveness of the power behind it but the agenda of the atheistic movement seems to stop at nothing to get their message accross. That includes infiltrating Christian Forums, the political arena, the education system, Scienceville, and the like. I wish that Christians had been so aggressive to bring the gospel of hope to the world. Perhaps then, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There indeed is an extreme view of Genesis but not because Genesis is an extreme view but because it is misunderstood. It is all in the eye of the beholder.



You know, LM, it is my experience that atheists are the 2nd most aggressive proselytizers of this generation. I recognize that is because of the aggressiveness of the power behind it but the agenda of the atheistic movement seems to stop at nothing to get their message accross. That includes infiltrating Christian Forums, the political arena, the education system, Scienceville, and the like. I wish that Christians had been so aggressive to bring the gospel of hope to the world. Perhaps then, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.

Those would be antitheists, also known as New Age Atheists. Most atheists don't really care what other people believe so long as they don't try to push those beliefs on us. In contrast, antitheists will be more aggressive, because they are a minority of atheists who in addition actually hate religion and think it hurts society to maintain religions.

 

[Inan3]

Those would be antitheists, also known as New Age Atheists. Most atheists don't really care what other people believe so long as they don't try to push those beliefs on us. In contrast, antitheists will be more aggressive, because they are a minority of atheists who in addition actually hate religion and think it hurts society to maintain religions.

Thanks

 

[bhsmte]

There indeed is an extreme view of Genesis but not because Genesis is an extreme view but because it is misunderstood. It is all in the eye of the beholder.



You know, LM, it is my experience that atheists are the 2nd most aggressive proselytizers of this generation. I recognize that is because of the aggressiveness of the power behind it but the agenda of the atheistic movement seems to stop at nothing to get their message accross. That includes infiltrating Christian Forums, the political arena, the education system, Scienceville, and the like. I wish that Christians had been so aggressive to bring the gospel of hope to the world. Perhaps then, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.

Would it be fair to say someone who interprets Genesis differently than you would claim you misinterpret Genesis? In reality, it all comes down to one's personal perception, because there is no objective evidence to support any interpretation of Genesis. I realize this is an unpleasant reality for many, but it is reality.

As long as you are able to believe in what you choose, I wouldn't worry to much about people disagreeing with you, because that is inevitable. The more people become educated, the more the come to accept the reality of the evidence. This trend will continue, as it has for decades.

 

[Inan3]

Would it be fair to say someone who interprets Genesis differently than you would claim you misinterpret Genesis? In reality, it all comes down to one's personal perception, because there is no objective evidence to support any interpretation of Genesis. I realize this is an unpleasant reality for many, but it is reality.

I don't know if it is fair or not but I would expect them to back up their claims with the scriptures seeings it is the scriptures we are talking about.

I would disagree that it all comes down to one's personal perception and the reason for that is that it is clearly written that it is NOT up to our PERSONAL perception but rather up to God's perception. ALTHOUGH... once a person who claims to be a Christian finds out the truth and what God's perception is then they can agree with it or disagree. That does not mean they will partake of the benefits of knowing and accepting the truth but it does mean that they have that choice. It does matter though, what your personal perception is. Jesus said, take heed WHAT you hear for with what measure you measure it, it will be measured that way back to you. The Bible clearly says that God's people PERISH from LACK of knowledge. It's this lack of knowledge that get Christians in trouble and keep them from the promises of God. So I'd say it does matter... quite a bit! The objective evidence is the Word of God and it's fruit.

As long as you are able to believe in what you choose, I wouldn't worry to much about people disagreeing with you, because that is inevitable.

On the contrary, one cannot decide what they choose to believe IF they are a Christian. God's Word gives us the basis of what we are to believe. It is only when we sway from the Word of God that we have incorrect interpretations. The scriptures interpret themselves. If it is not consistant all the way through it is wrong. The scriptures DO NOT contradict themselves only the interpretation. That is why we must study to show ourselves approved unto God. We need to KNOW what the scriptures say in entirety rather than just take a verse or two out and build a doctrine or argument on it. As I said the scriptures interpret themselves so If one thinks someones interpretation is wrong then they should be able to prove it by the scriptures other than that it is mere opinion and not verifiable.

The more people become educated, the more the come to accept the reality of the evidence. This trend will continue, as it has for decades.

I'm not sure what evidence you are referring to but I'm thinking it is in your reality and not true reality from my sense of your post. I could be wrong but I'd need more info to know for sure.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You have to understand, it doesn't matter what any text says, each individual person who reads it is going to interpret it a little differently.

 

[biggles53]

I wish that Christians had been so aggressive to bring the gospel of hope to the world. Perhaps then, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.

Yes......bring back the Crusades...! Bring back the Inquisitions...!

Those were the days......!

 

[Kylie]

You realize that, detecting current isotope ratios says nothing about how and when the earth was formed? All it tells us is what the current isotope ratios are.

Yes they do.

If you know that the bucket started out full and you know that the bucket loses half the amount of water in it every hour and you see that it is currently 1/8 full, you know that it was full three hours ago. Do you have any idea how radiometric dating actually works? or are you going over into Dad's different state past nonsense?

 

[crazyforgod1212]

Yes they do.

If you know that the bucket started out full and you know that the bucket loses half the amount of water in it every hour and you see that it is currently 1/8 full, you know that it was full three hours ago. Do you have any idea how radiometric dating actually works? or are you going over into Dad's different state past nonsense?

But you assume no one squeezed the bucket or put more water in.

 

[Kylie]

But you assume no one squeezed the bucket or put more water in.

Such things would leave evidence in reality. On occasions, we do find this, such as contamination, and we are able to correct for it. these scientists actually know what they are doing.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But you assume no one squeezed the bucket or put more water in.

You do realize that kind of an event would make things date YOUNGER than they actually were, not older, right? So even if we couldn't tell when that kind of contamination happened (which we can) it still wouldn't make the earth any younger than we date it, it would mean the earth was even older. And the "squeezing the bucket" sort of thing doesn't really apply so much.

 

[EternalDragon]

Yes they do.

If you know that the bucket started out full and you know that the bucket loses half the amount of water in it every hour and you see that it is currently 1/8 full, you know that it was full three hours ago. Do you have any idea how radiometric dating actually works? or are you going over into Dad's different state past nonsense?

How do you know the bucket started out full?....sounds like a bad joke....

"Guy walks into a bar and finds a half empty bucket of water...."

 

[PsychoSarah]

How do you know the bucket started out full?

The hard water left rings at the top (an allusion to the signs radioactive isotopes leave behind thanks to their decay beyond their daughter elements).

 

[dad]

Blind faith in a mythical different state past. Even more worthless.

God's word is of ultimate worth actually.

I'm sorry, but where do they say that this ANCESTOR of humans (which lived half a billion years ago) is a MODERN FLATWORM?

It was a flatworm! Since we do not have a complete sampling of what flatworms actually were alive at that time (probably about 5 or 6000 years real time) we may not assume some almost identical to modern ones were not here.

Like a geocentric universe? That was extremely wrong, yet not icky.

Says who? Perhaps the rotations of planets was different in the different state past! How would we know now? Don't make claims you can't support.

And what about the ichneumon wasp? They are icky, but certainly they are not false.

No, but as I said the present state required many adaptations that were not the created norm.

Your belief that wrong is icky and icky is wrong is beyond ridiculous. It is wishful thinking and has no relevance to reality whatsoever.

The observation that God is Beauty and what He makes is beautiful is a law of the universe. This is news?

There's plenty in nature that is icky. You're just ignorant of it.

Doesn't matter, sin is icky, and sin mandated a change in nature.

Reality doesn't care what anyone thinks.

Is that what you think?!

I, however, care deeply about what reality shows us.

What you see is part of reality.

(You are no doubt now going to suggest that reality talks to me with a little voice or some other ridiculous notion, and miss my point entirely)

You suggest that reality does not communicate with you at all now? Worrisome.

 

[Kylie]

God's word is of ultimate worth actually.

So are the words of the happy little elves. What's that? A simple claim does nothing to convince you? Then wy are you doing it to me?

It was a flatworm! Since we do not have a complete sampling of what flatworms actually were alive at that time (probably about 5 or 6000 years real time) we may not assume some almost identical to modern ones were not here.

You do realise that this attitude of "Unless we know for sure it was different, it must have been the same" is absolutely stupid, yes?

Says who? Perhaps the rotations of planets was different in the different state past! How would we know now? Don't make claims you can't support.

HA! Claims you can't support, you say? And what are you doing here? Geez, you make me laugh.

No, but as I said the present state required many adaptations that were not the created norm.

Speculation.

The observation that God is Beauty and what He makes is beautiful is a law of the universe. This is news?

No, it is speculation.

Doesn't matter, sin is icky, and sin mandated a change in nature.

So if I show you something icky, how do you differentiate between natural beautiful ickiness and sin ickiness?

Is that what you think?!

Well, I;ve never seen reality show any signs of caring. Have you?

What you see is part of reality.

GASP! No, really?

You suggest that reality does not communicate with you at all now? Worrisome.

Do you think at all before you click on "post"?