toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

[Alate_One]

Again, radiation is a result of the release of energy from the Flood.

Assuming millions of years and then extrapolating half-life decay rates based on that is not evidence. It's just bad science. In fact, it's not even science.

It's very much science. One of the assumptions inherent in scientific analysis of the past is that the present should be key to the past. Events in the past have no clear reason (or evidence) of having operated vastly differently than today. The laws of physics and chemistry are not at all likely to have changed over time.

Pain is not physical.

Pain is awareness, and awareness is not physical.

Quoting KGOV.com isn't evidence and as usual his arguments are moronic. The brain can't directly feel pain because there are no pain receptors there. You can block pain with medications. It is a physical thing however, it is subjective and cannot be independently quantified.

C. S. Lewis was anti-evolution:

At the end of his life many people tried to convince him of this. But that is not what he wrote originally.

From the Problem of Pain:

For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed for ages in this state before it became man: it may even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends. Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say 'I' and 'me,' which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty, and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past.

Was this an attempt at an ad hominem?

No. General statement for anyone reading scripture. :chuckle:

Rather, one merely has to read scripture and take it to mean exactly what it says in context.

Okay. Can stars fall to the earth?

The rate of decay has nothing to do with the unverifiable assumptions that are made that render radioactive dating to be utterly useless for determining the age of anything.

Do you understand that the melting of rock "resets" the radioactive isotopes inside of a rock?

Not to mention that radioactivity was not present on the earth until the Flood.

Right because that's obviously in the Bible or makes any sense at all physically or geologically. Without radioactive elements in the earth's core there is no magnetic field and without a magnetic field to deflect harmful particles from the sub the atmosphere would be stripped and life forms would be cooked.

Assuming the truth of your position is called question begging, Alate, and is a logical fallacy.

You accuse me of this but you've done the same thing at least a half dozen times in just this reply . . .

The evidence is that there are many layers of snow and ice in Antarctica. Saying they represent 55,000 years of snow/ice disallows discussion of the evidence outside of your beliefs

Well if we can look at recent layers of snow and ice and recognize them as annual layers and then we take an ice core and we find 55,000 almost identical layers, that should tell you something no?

Rather, maybe your position has blinded you to the simplicity of the arguments.

There's simplicity, and poorly supported ideas. You posted the latter.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's very much science.

Assuming one's conclusion is not science.

It's a logical fallacy.

One of the assumptions inherent in scientific analysis of the past is that the present should be key to the past. Events in the past have no clear reason (or evidence) of having operated vastly differently than today. The laws of physics and chemistry are not at all likely to have changed over time.

No, but that does not mean that events could not have effects on processes.

For example (regarding radioactivity):

Decay rates speed up by a billion times or more when half lives are measured for atoms stripped of their electrons; for example when ionized the 41-billion year half life of rhenium's beta decay speeds up to 33 years.

- https://rsr.org/radioactivity

Quoting KGOV.com isn't evidence

Genetic fallacy. Address the argument made, not where it came from.

and as usual his arguments are moronic.

This is an appeal to the stone.

Please address the arguments that were made, not the one making the argument.

The brain can't directly feel pain because there are no pain receptors there. You can block pain with medications.

:think:

"Pain is awareness."

:doh:

When you block the signal from the nerve to the brain, the body does not feel pain, because the brain is not aware of the signal from the nerve.

Thank you for conceding the point.

It is a physical thing however,

Except it's not, because awareness is not physical.

it is subjective

So what?

and cannot be independently quantified.

Again, so what?

At the end of his life many people tried to convince him of this. But that is not what he wrote originally.

From the Problem of Pain:

For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed for ages in this state before it became man: it may even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends. Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say 'I' and 'me,' which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty, and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past.

Ok, and?

No. General statement for anyone reading scripture. :chuckle:

Okay. Can stars fall to the earth?

"Within context" means exactly that.

So.

Context please.

Book, chapter, verse.

Do you understand that the melting of rock "resets" the radioactive isotopes inside of a rock?

What's your point?

Right because that's obviously in the Bible or makes any sense at all physically or geologically.

This is an appeal to ridicule.

Please address the argument that was made.

Without radioactive elements in the earth's core there is no magnetic field

Because you say so?

and without a magnetic field to deflect harmful particles from the sub the atmosphere would be stripped and life forms would be cooked.

I'm just going to leave this here.

https://kgov.com/earth-and-mercury-rapid-magnetic-field-decay

You accuse me of this but you've done the same thing at least a half dozen times in just this reply . . .

I simply assume the Bible to be true (Based on the above evidences).

Well if we can look at recent layers of snow and ice and recognize them as annual layers and then we take an ice core and we find 55,000 almost identical layers, that should tell you something no?

It should tell you that you've brought a priori beliefs to the table. Get rid of those, then we can discuss the evidence.

The evidence is that there are 55,000 layers of snow/ice.

To blatantly assert that they are "annual layers" without evidence is not science, it's question begging.

There's simplicity, and poorly supported ideas. You posted the latter.

:blabla:

 

[Gary K]

It's very much science. One of the assumptions inherent in scientific analysis of the past is that the present should be key to the past. Events in the past have no clear reason (or evidence) of having operated vastly differently than today. The laws of physics and chemistry are not at all likely to have changed over time.

And steady state has been proven false again and again. Take a look at what has happened at Mt. St. Helens. If the geologic changes hadn't happened right in front of everyone's eyes over the last 4 decades or so you eveolutionists would claim it took millions of years to happen. Look at the Missoula flood. Evolutionists condemned the man who showed that a catastrophic flood had changed the landscape hundreds of miles away and the scientists ostracized him for decades because steady state theory said it couldn't have happened the way it did.

Also remember the volcanic island that came out of the ocean and evolutionists had been claiming it took millions of years for the changes that happened on that island to take place but they actually took place in a matter of months.

In the Oregon Caves the tour leaders say it took so many millions of years to form the stalactites and stalagmites in those caves. I asked the tour guide about climactic changes such as droughts and wet years that changed the water flows and mineral content and he swore up and down there was no change I asked him who was there to observe all this and all he did was get mad. On the way out of the caves we passed through a concrete tunnel. During the tour the guide told us that the stalactites and stalagmites grew extremely slowly. Only thousands of an inch a year. a year. Well, there was a crack in the ceiling and a 6" stalactite was hanging from the ceiling. I asked the guide how long the tunnel had been there and he told me 3 or 4 years. I pointed out the stalactite growing there and commented on how long that tunnel must have been there to grow a 6" stalactite. I thought he was going to punch me for pointing that everything he had said in the caves was false. The evolutionists in the group got really angry too. They were booing and hissing.

I thought it was pretty amusing that his response was not to show embarrassment for being so wrong but anger at the proof right in front of his eyes that what he was preaching was false. BTW, he had a degree in geology, but he hadn't recognized the evidence he walked by several times a day. It told me he either knew he was preaching a lie, or he was such a poor observer that that he couldn't recognize what was going on. And here I thought observation was supposed to be the strong suit of scientists. That they are trained to be excellent observers.

 

[Silent Hunter]

From the cited article:

10. To date a rock one must know the original amount of the parent element. But there is no way to measure how much parent element was originally there.
=
:yawn:

And here is a nuclear scientist that rejects the accuracy of radiometric dating.

https://blog.drwile.com/scientist-realizes-important-flaw-in-radioactive-dating/

:rotfl:

0.5% error. So?

I'm not sure we even know the total population of the Earth to within that margin of error.

"The world population was estimated to have reached 7,500,000,000 at 16:21(UTC) on April 24, 2017. The United Nations estimates it will further increase to 11.2 billion in the year 2100. UN projections show a continued increase in population in the near future with a steady decline in population growth rate; global population is expected to reach between 8.3 and 10.9 billion by 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100." - Wikipedia

Nope. +-5% at best.

 

[chair]

It depends on who's "theory of evolution" you're talking about.

The atheist materialist view requires common descent from a single common ancestor as well as life arising from non-life "on its own".

I am referring to the scientific theory of evolution. It will make this discussion much easier if everybody would just stick to it, rather than attack various straw men.

 

[Right Divider]

I am referring to the scientific theory of evolution.

:rotfl:

Real science disproves any such "theory of evolution".

It will make this discussion much easier if everybody would just stick to it, rather than attack various straw men.

You mean like "the scientific theory of evolution"?

Please detail this theory for us.

Once again, many evolutionists are atheist materialists and they require that the origin of life evolved from non-life.

 

[7djengo7]

Why haven't you? So far you haven't named even one "assumption" with which you disagree. All you have done is make a naked assertion.

There are assumptions made in EVERY scientific hypothesis, heck, it's an integral and ESSENTIAL part of the scientific method; perhaps you should familiarize yourself with it. For instance, one of the basic assumptions of Relativity is that c, the speed of light, is the same for all observers in all inertial refererence frames. Are we absolutely certain of this? No.

As I said in a prior reply:

1. Despite your repeated (ad nauseum) assertion, there is only one assumption in radiometric dating, any other assumption(s) are derivitatives of the initial assumption; ALL isotopes decay at a CONSTANT and KNOWN rate and are specific to the particular isotope.

2. They are called assumptions for a reason.

3. If you have evidence to show that there is reason to assume isotope decay rates (half-lives) have changed then this is YOUR burden to prove, you know, falsify the hypothesis.

4. We're still waiting on your evidence that "DESTROYS" radiometric dating.

5. If assertion is the best you have then we are justified in continuing to NOT take you seriously.

But you've repeatedly demonstrated that you don't even know what assumption is, so why do you expect to be taken seriously when you keep parroting the word "assumption"?

For instance, right here, you just wrote:

"any other assumption(s) are derivitatives of the initial assumption"

No assumption is a derivative of any assumption. Why can you not even tell the difference between inference and assumption, and yet you expect to be taken seriously?

 

[Arthur Brain]

:rotfl:

Real science disproves any such "theory of evolution".

Where's this "real science" and can you cite to it, because I'm rather suspecting that it's nothing but silly assertion and bluster on your part without it, and quite possibly with it depending on the source. On an adjoining thread you mentioned "is it any wonder that creationists mock evolutionist ideas" which is more than a little ironic given the very basic misunderstanding from the OP in this thread alone. Otherwise, creationism isn't even regarded as science the whole world over and you're grasping at straws if you're going to reduce that to an "appeal to popularity" or some such. The scientific method doesn't work like that.

You mean like "the scientific theory of evolution"?

Please detail this theory for us.

Once again, many evolutionists are atheist materialists and they require that the origin of life evolved from non-life.

Um, no. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of life whatsoever and Alate One has explained evolution in consummate detail as it is to you, answering your questions with detailed responses of which you just waive off without any consideration at all.

 

[Right Divider]

[MENTION=10403]Arthur Brain[/MENTION]

1. If you'd ever like to discuss the science of radiometric and the multiple assumptions that are the basis of the method, I'd be glad to discuss.
   If you're just going to continue to tell us how well accepted and popular it is or how many smart people believe it then forget about it.
2. Again, the atheistic materialist world view which drives a lot of the "evolutionist community" requires that life came into being via some form of material evolution.

 

[7djengo7]

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of life whatsoever

LOL

If something has nothing to do with the actual origin of life whatsoever, yet does have something to do with the actual origin of something, then whatever it has to do with the actual origin of is, by your own definition, non-life. Whatever's not life is, by definition, non-life. Law of excluded middle. But then, you proudly despise logic, and cherish nonsense, so you have no use for the law of excluded middle. That's OK, but rationally-thinking people respect it, and therefore cannot respect your irrationality.

So, by telling us that

1. The theory of evolution has to do with the actual origin of something, and
2. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of life,

Arthur Brain is telling us that​

The theory of [biological!] evolution has to do with the actual origin of non-life.​

If the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of life, and the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of non-life, then the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of anything, whatsoever.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Why haven't you? So far you haven't named even one "assumption" with which you disagree. All you have done is make a naked assertion.

There are assumptions made in EVERY scientific hypothesis, heck, it's an integral and ESSENTIAL part of the scientific method; perhaps you should familiarize yourself with it. For instance, one of the basic assumptions of Relativity is that c, the speed of light, is the same for all observers in all inertial refererence frames. Are we absolutely certain of this? No.

As I said in a prior reply:

1. Despite your repeated (ad nauseum) assertion, there is only one assumption in radiometric dating, any other assumption(s) are derivitatives of the initial assumption; ALL isotopes decay at a CONSTANT and KNOWN rate and are specific to the particular isotope.

2. They are called assumptions for a reason.

3. If you have evidence to show that there is reason to assume isotope decay rates (half-lives) have changed then this is YOUR burden to prove, you know, falsify the hypothesis.

4. We're still waiting on your evidence that "DESTROYS" radiometric dating.

5. If assertion is the best you have then we are justified in continuing to NOT take you seriously.

But you've repeatedly demonstrated that you don't even know what assumption is, so why do you expect to be taken seriously when you keep parroting the word "assumption"?

You have me mistaken for Right Divider. He's the "parrot" who keeps screeching, "Assumption!!! Assumption!!!".

For instance, right here, you just wrote:

"any other assumption(s) are derivitatives of the initial assumption"

No assumption is a derivative of any assumption. Why can you not even tell the difference between inference and assumption, and yet you expect to be taken seriously?

Since you clearly have no understanding of the subject matter you might benefit from staying out of the conversation and only be thought a fool, keep posting and you will remove all doubt (as if you haven't demonstrated that already).

 

[Right Divider]

You have me mistaken for Right Divider. He's the "parrot" who keeps screeching, "Assumption!!! Assumption!!!".

No "screeching" from me. But I have repeated that radiometric dating is BASED on a minimum of THREE ASSUMPTIONS. Did you not know that radiometric dating is BASED on a minimum of THREE ASSUMPTIONS?

Are you going to be a stonewaller too? Or is it possible for you to actually discuss those ASSUMPTIONS?

 

[Arthur Brain]

[MENTION=10403]Arthur Brain[/MENTION]

1. If you'd ever like to discuss the science of radiometric and the multiple assumptions that are the basis of the method, I'd be glad to discuss.
   If you're just going to continue to tell us how well accepted and popular it is or how many smart people believe it then forget about it.
2. Again, the atheistic materialist world view which drives a lot of the "evolutionist community" requires that life came into being via some form of material evolution.

The "evolutionist community"? You still don't seem to get that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with life itself coming about.

I've seen your "exchanges" with Alate One, a professor of biology who has kicked you into touch on misunderstandings and your "rebuttals" to her detailed examples may as well have emanated from a schoolyard.

If you want to be honest, then just admit that you have no interest or inclination to accept or even investigate anything that contradicts with your fundamental belief system, that being that the earth/universe is a whole lot younger than what science indicates on so many levels.

 

[Arthur Brain]

LOL

If something has nothing to do with the actual origin of life whatsoever, yet does have something to do with the actual origin of something, then whatever it has to do with the actual origin of is, by your own definition, non-life. Whatever's not life is, by definition, non-life. Law of excluded middle. But then, you proudly despise logic, and cherish nonsense, so you have no use for the law of excluded middle. That's OK, but rationally-thinking people respect it, and therefore cannot respect your irrationality.

So, by telling us that

1. The theory of evolution has to do with the actual origin of something, and
2. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of life,

Arthur Brain is telling us that​

The theory of [biological!] evolution has to do with the actual origin of non-life.​

If the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of life, and the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of non-life, then the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of anything, whatsoever.

Seriously, stick to gaming. The theory of evolution does not, nor attempt to explain how life itself originated.

 

[Silent Hunter]

No "screeching" from me. But I have repeated that radiometric dating is BASED on a minimum of THREE ASSUMPTIONS. Did you not know that radiometric dating is BASED on a minimum of THREE ASSUMPTIONS?

... and the screeching continues...

Are you going to be a stonewaller too? Or is it possible for you to actually discuss those ASSUMPTIONS?

Why haven't you? You've been given every opportunity. So far you haven't named even one "assumption" with which you disagree. All you have done is make a naked assertion.

There are assumptions made in EVERY scientific hypothesis, heck, it's an integral and ESSENTIAL part of the scientific method; perhaps you should familiarize yourself with it. For instance, one of the basic assumptions of Relativity is that c, the speed of light, is the same for all observers in all inertial refererence frames. Are we absolutely certain of this? No.

As I said in a prior reply:

1. Despite your repeated (ad nauseum) assertion, there is only one assumption in radiometric dating, any other assumption(s) are derivitatives of the initial assumption; ALL isotopes decay at a CONSTANT and KNOWN rate and are specific to the particular isotope.

2. They are called assumptions for a reason.

3. If you have evidence to show that there is reason to assume isotope decay rates (half-lives) have changed then this is YOUR burden to prove, you know, falsify the hypothesis.

4. We're still waiting on your evidence that "DESTROYS" radiometric dating.

5. If assertion is the best you have then we are justified in continuing to NOT take you seriously.

 

[JudgeRightly]

3. If you have evidence to show that there is reason to assume isotope decay rates (half-lives) have changed then this is YOUR burden to prove, you know, falsify the hypothesis.

Did you not know that decay rates speed up by a billion times or more when half lives are measured for atoms stripped of their electrons; for example when ionized the 41-billion year half life of rhenium's beta decay speeds up to 33 years?

Are you aware that there is a natural process (ie, one that does not only occur in a lab) that can accomplish this, which renders the assumption that the decay rates are constant to be invalid?

 

[Jonahdog]

Did you not know that decay rates speed up by a billion times or more when half lives are measured for atoms stripped of their electrons; for example when ionized the 41-billion year half life of rhenium's beta decay speeds up to 33 years?

Are you aware that there is a natural process (ie, one that does not occur in a lab) that can accomplish this, which renders the assumption that the decay rates are constant to be invalid?

What natural process is that? Citations to the literature please.

 

[Right Divider]

The "evolutionist community"? You still don't seem to get that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with life itself coming about.

And ONCE AGAIN, you show yourself to be DEAF to anyone's comments but your own.

The atheist materialist view (which is quite common in the "evolutionist community") REQUIRES that life evolves from non-life.

[That you have to complain about this commonly used idiomatic expression shows that you have no real content to discuss]

I've seen your "exchanges" with Alate One, a professor of biology who has kicked you into touch on misunderstandings and your "rebuttals" to her detailed examples may as well have emanated from a schoolyard.

You both think that mistakes (mutations) are a creative force that can design complex interdependent systems. That's silly, not science.

If you want to be honest, then just admit that you have no interest or inclination to accept or even investigate anything that contradicts with your fundamental belief system, that being that the earth/universe is a whole lot younger than what science indicates on so many levels.

Cry me a river.

You've YET, in all this time, to discuss radiometric dating and the multiple assumptions that are its basis. You are a "true believer" regardless of scientific FACTS.

 

[7djengo7]

Seriously, stick to gaming. The theory of evolution does not, nor attempt to explain how life itself originated.

LOL

I agree with Arthur Brain, here, that the nonsense he calls "the theory of evolution" does not explain anything, at all.

 

[7djengo7]

The "evolutionist community"? You still don't seem to get that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with life itself coming about.

LOL

As Arthur Brain has consistently demonstrated through all his posts in this thread, the nonsense he calls "the theory of evolution" has nothing to do with anything, whatsoever.