Discrimination On Scientists That Back ID

[Powerman]

Untrue. Simply untrue. Evidence? There is evidence the Eagles are a better team than the Seahawks. Just doesn't make sense. Nobody with a lick of sense can think life 'just happened' after millions of years of sitting around, chemicals just sorta collided into life. Doesn't pass the 'common sense' test, does it?

OK if you want to be a smartass then I'll play along.

First off let me rehash my argument since you are acting like a kid about it. I didn't say that I knew HOW life started which is what you are so desperately trying to put into my mouth.

I stated the following. Billions of years ago life started out as very simple single celled organisms. I never claimed how they came into existence.

You wanted evidence here it is. First thing that came up in google with "single celled fossils"

http://askascientist.binghamton.edu/jan-feb/25jan04ask.html

The article claims they date back 3.6 billion years. I've provided my evidence and now it is your turn. Find humans or any other fairly complex forms of life for that matter that date back to the same time period.

 

[Powerman]

Well good luck finding fossils of complex beings that coexist with the earliest life forms... :rotflmao:

I need to get lunch and do some shopping. We'll resume this later if you folks are online.

 

[no1tovote4]

OK if you want to be a smartass then I'll play along.

First off let me rehash my argument since you are acting like a kid about it. I didn't say that I knew HOW life started which is what you are so desperately trying to put into my mouth.

I stated the following. Billions of years ago life started out as very simple single celled organisms. I never claimed how they came into existence.

You wanted evidence here it is. First thing that came up in google with "single celled fossils"

http://askascientist.binghamton.edu/jan-feb/25jan04ask.html

The article claims they date back 3.6 billion years. I've provided my evidence and now it is your turn. Find humans or any other fairly complex forms of life for that matter that date back to the same time period.

The first paragraph of the article claims that they date back to 530 Million years ago, not 3.6 Billion years.

The only place it mentions 3.6 Billion years it says:

"Now there are geologists, chemists and biologists looking at yet older rocks and the occurrence of carbon in them, and have shown that this carbon is very similar in its character to organic carbon (its isotopic composition in chemical terms). This is an element present in all organisms known to inhabit or to have inhabited the earth. If this research progresses as expected, we may soon have a yet older date for the appearance of the first living creatures, conceivably as old as 4 billion years. Certainly we do know that the 3.6 billion year old bacterial, single celled fossils were not the most primitive or oldest organisms to live on earth. "

You are being disingenuous, it is clear you expected nobody to read the article and to take what you stated at face value.


So, in retrospect, your article proves exactly the opposite of what you stated. The oldest single cell organisms found were dated back 530 Million years. The oldest multi-cellular organisms were dated back to 700 Million years. Then it states that 'if the research progresses as expected' they might find some that are 3.6 billion years old, but haven't yet.

Unless, of course, you are talking about mars...

http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/marslife/photos.htm

 

[Powerman]

The first paragraph of the article claims that they date back to 530 Million years ago, not 3.6 Billion years.

The only place it mentions 3.6 Billion years it says:


You are being disingenuous, it is clear you expected nobody to read the article and to take what you stated at face value.


So, in retrospect, your article proves exactly the opposite of what you stated. The oldest single cell organisms found were dated back 530 Million years. The oldest multi-cellular organisms were dated back to 700 Million years. Then it states that 'if the research progresses as expected' they might find some that are 3.6 billion years old, but haven't yet.

Unless, of course, you are talking about mars...

http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/marslife/photos.htm

Oops. Wait a second. From the article

quote:In fact, we have very consistent and reliably dated fossils of bacterial deposits as old as 3.6 billion years. Enough such fossils have been found to convince everyone that they are, in truth, remains of single celled organisms, some better organized, with a nucleus in the cell, and others lacking it.


The 530 Million number that you are referring to refers to shelled orgamisms such as mollusks...

I think it's clear that you might want to read the article again as well.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Untrue. Simply untrue. Evidence? There is evidence the Eagles are a better team than the Seahawks. Just doesn't make sense. Nobody with a lick of sense can think life 'just happened' after millions of years of sitting around, chemicals just sorta collided into life. Doesn't pass the 'common sense' test, does it?

D, there are plenty of truths that, when or before they were discovered did not pass the "common sense" test. Common sense is good for day-to-day life and less so for complex topics like the origin of life. Not to mention that common sense is highly subjective, especially between you and Powerman.

 

[Powerman]

D, there are plenty of truths that, when or before they were discovered did not pass the "common sense" test. Common sense is good for day-to-day life and less so for complex topics like the origin of life. Not to mention that common sense is highly subjective, especially between you and Powerman.

Well I gave him his evidence. What he chooses to gather from the truth that I have shown him is up to him.

 

[dmp]

OK if you want to be a smartass then I'll play along.

First off let me rehash my argument since you are acting like a kid about it. I didn't say that I knew HOW life started which is what you are so desperately trying to put into my mouth.

I stated the following. Billions of years ago life started out as very simple single celled organisms. I never claimed how they came into existence.

You wanted evidence here it is. First thing that came up in google with "single celled fossils"

http://askascientist.binghamton.edu/jan-feb/25jan04ask.html

The article claims they date back 3.6 billion years. I've provided my evidence and now it is your turn. Find humans or any other fairly complex forms of life for that matter that date back to the same time period.

Being a kid? What the fuck is up your butt? Knock it off - you tend to read statements and look for ANY possibility to get pissy.

3.6billion years eh...again, to quote YOU "somebody would have to be a fool to believe that".

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Well I gave him his evidence. What he chooses to gather from the truth that I have shown him is up to him.

Man, does that sound like a religious fanatic. Are you sure you're not a spy?

 

[dmp]

D, there are plenty of truths that, when or before they were discovered did not pass the "common sense" test. Common sense is good for day-to-day life and less so for complex topics like the origin of life. Not to mention that common sense is highly subjective, especially between you and Powerman.

Sure - but we're not talking about 'plenty'...we're talking about one theory...Life either happened by accident, or happened on purpose.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Sure - but we're not talking about 'plenty'...we're talking about one theory...Life either happened by accident, or happened on purpose.

All I was saying is, I don't think you can use common sense as a litmus test for it.

 

[Powerman]

Sure - but we're not talking about 'plenty'...we're talking about one theory...Life either happened by accident, or happened on purpose.

Personally for me it doesn't matter if it happened on purpose or by coincidence. There is no way that a belief in evolution should in any way prove or disprove the existence of a God. The 2 are mutually exclusive in every sense of the phrase. If people would realize that then maybe we'd get somewhere.

 

[dmp]

All I was saying is, I don't think you can use common sense as a litmus test for it.

I think one has to apply what they read online to their common-sense genes. Common sense 'should' have dictated Columbus was RIGHT about the earth. I'm saying, based on what we know about life, earth, biology, etc, the things Powerman clings to simply cannot add up. That 'should' be common sense, but I fear, as 'they say', common sense isn't too common.

 

[Powerman]

Being a kid? What the fuck is up your butt? Knock it off - you tend to read statements and look for ANY possibility to get pissy.

3.6billion years eh...again, to quote YOU "somebody would have to be a fool to believe that".

I said you were being a kid because you were trying to put words in my mouth. I never claimed to know how life started. All I know is that it started at least 3.6 billion years ago and that it was very simple when it started. Now things are not simple. Those 2 are absolute facts for which there is absolutely no dispute whatsoever. Unless of course it is your contention that life is very simple now. I don't believe that it is.

 

[Powerman]

I think one has to apply what they read online to their common-sense genes. Common sense 'should' have dictated Columbus was RIGHT about the earth. I'm saying, based on what we know about life, earth, biology, etc, the things Powerman clings to simply cannot add up. That 'should' be common sense, but I fear, as 'they say', common sense isn't too common.

Could you specifically tell me which one particular thing that I cling to does not add up. Or if it is several things can you tell me why it doesn't add up?

 

[dmp]

I said you were being a kid because you were trying to put words in my mouth. I never claimed to know how life started. All I know is that it started at least 3.6 billion years ago and that it was very simple when it started. Now things are not simple. Those 2 are absolute facts for which there is absolutely no dispute whatsoever. Unless of course it is your contention that life is very simple now. I don't believe that it is.

Put words in your mouth...ahh. right.

See? there's your problem. You believe somebody's OPINION and call it 'absolute truth'. Clearly, it's NOT truth, because there is no PROOF of the claims. Yes, some truths cannot be proven:

Absolute Truth:
God is real.
Jesus is God.

These are 'Opinion', but there's little evidence to proclaim one way or another:

Macro Evolution HAPPENED.
Powerman is a kind, wonderful guy, who is NOT bitter at God and Christians.

 

[dmp]

Could you specifically tell me which one particular thing that I cling to does not add up. Or if it is several things can you tell me why it doesn't add up?

Here's one:

The earth is at least 3.6 BILLION years old.

 

[Powerman]

Put words in your mouth...ahh. right.

See? there's your problem. You believe somebody's OPINION and call it 'absolute truth'. Clearly, it's NOT truth, because there is no PROOF of the claims. Yes, some truths cannot be proven:

Absolute Truth:
God is real.
Jesus is God.

These are 'Opinion', but there's little evidence to proclaim one way or another:

Macro Evolution HAPPENED.
Powerman is a kind, wonderful guy, who is NOT bitter at God and Christians.

Now you're just being silly. I am a nice wonderful person and I'm not "bitter" at God because I don't believe in God. And I'm not "bitter" at Christians because not all Christians seek to obstruct science. You can't prove that God is real or that Jesus is God. But that's another topic. I don't want to get into your religious beliefs. We're talking about science right now so they are completely irrelevant.


You asked me for evidence and I have given you evidence. You chose to ignore the evidence and start making personal attacks about me. You did try to put words in my mouth as to how I thought that life on this planet was formed earlier. Maybe you need to take a step back and evaluate who is being the stubborn one here because it isn't me.

 

[Powerman]

Here's one:

The earth is at least 3.6 BILLION years old.

The Earth is actually estimated to be 4.55 Billion years old. I said that the earliest life was at least 3.6 billion years old. Now would you like to tell me why that doesn't add up? Because that's the number that the scientific community agrees on.

You not liking the answer because it doesn't support your position isn't a valid reason for it not to add up.

 

[dmp]

You asked me for evidence and I have given you evidence. You chose to ignore the evidence and start making personal attacks about me. You did try to put words in my mouth as to how I thought that life on this planet was formed earlier. Maybe you need to take a step back and evaluate who is being the stubborn one here because it isn't me.

Okay - look, I've made NO personal attacks on you. Stop lying, or stop being a baby.

How can me saying "PM thinks life on this planet was formed earlier (than, say, 10,000 or whatever) years ago" is putting words in your mouth when you clearly believe it?

 

[dmp]

The Earth is actually estimated to be 4.55 Billion years old. I said that the earliest life was at least 3.6 billion years old. Now would you like to tell me why that doesn't add up? Because that's the number that the scientific community agrees on.

You not liking the answer because it doesn't support your position isn't a valid reason for it not to add up.

No - it's just I don't take people's opinion as truth.

Here's 'my' evidence for you to like or not like...but it makes MUCH more sense than what you've linked to.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter8.asp