Isn't it true that the more a group tries to censor it's members, the more suspect it is?

[Subduction Zone]

Since @Neb did finally answer my question about Lucy, and demonstrated a lack of understanding of the concept of scientific evidence in doing so, I do feel duty bound to answer one of his questions.

The basis for dating Lucy relies on radiometric dating. Though we cannot date the layer that she was in directly the formation that she was found in has occasional volcanic flows and ashes in it. Those can be dated directly with the 40Ar/39Ar method of radiometric dating. Those events give a bracket for the age of Lucy telling us that she was at least older than those deposits above her and younger than those below her. That along with other studies, such as paleomagnetic, sedimentology, and paleontology gives us a very accurate date of roughly 3.18 million years old:

Lucy's Story | Institute of Human Origins

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creationists hang on your every word, until they find something they can disagree with and then the rest of what you've said is completely ignored as they begin replying with their first objection...

It is part of a massive act of cognitive dissonance. If the words aren't there they will reinterpret what is written. Please note how many times the definition of macroevolution that both you and I used, that was based on how it was defined by the coiner of the term was stated to be "wrong". Yet no links were ever supported. I think that the realization that atheists can no more redefine Jesus than creationists can redefine scientific terms may have finally sunk in.

 

[Neb]

It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur, and are inherited by the descendant groups, and that several independent sets of biological markers do exist which trace these lineages back over myriad generations.

What I don’t understand is, how can a single-celled organism through genetic mutation added NEW genetic information to become a man when the fact that beneficial mutation does not add new information? This you need to explain.

 

[shmogie]

"The Imperfection of the Geological Record” based on Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology is another Darwin's theory of the gap. It's like a theory needs another theory to justify a theory. It’s a vicious circular reasoning based on Darwin’s delusional theories. IOW, your theory of evolution is flawed.

Hey, you can´t offer criticism to him like this, he is your teacher ! All creationists do it though. We guyś just don´t understand.................................................anything he says, cause he is always right.

 

[Neb]

Since @Neb did finally answer my question about Lucy, and demonstrated a lack of understanding of the concept of scientific evidence in doing so, I do feel duty bound to answer one of his questions.

The basis for dating Lucy relies on radiometric dating. Though we cannot date the layer that she was in directly the formation that she was found in has occasional volcanic flows and ashes in it. Those can be dated directly with the 40Ar/39Ar method of radiometric dating. Those events give a bracket for the age of Lucy telling us that she was at least older than those deposits above her and younger than those below her. That along with other studies, such as paleomagnetic, sedimentology, and paleontology gives us a very accurate date of roughly 3.18 million years old:

Lucy's Story | Institute of Human Origins

How do you get the age of argon? By what standard of studies or age assignments? And why they did not test Lucy with C-14 dating method?

 

[Neb]

Hey, you can´t offer criticism to him like this, he is your teacher ! All creationists do it though. We guyś just don´t understand.................................................anything he says, cause he is always right.

We all have this Q&A in a box and if it happens that I run out first then he wins but right now I still have few more that I would like to share with our atheist friends here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I don’t understand is, how can a single-celled organism through genetic mutation added NEW genetic information to become a man when the fact that beneficial mutation does not add new information? This you need to explain.

What do you mean? By definition a beneficial mutation is "new information".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey, you can´t offer criticism to him like this, he is your teacher ! All creationists do it though. We guyś just don´t understand.................................................anything he says, cause he is always right.

Now please, no personal attacks. I have not said that you are a fool or any other disparaging remarks. Let's try to keep it civil.

 

[Neb]

Yep, my bad. Often I say "life as we see it". And I am willing to discuss abiogenesis once one understands evolution. If a person can't do that then there is no point in going back to how life first appeared.

I would love to hear your side of it. We are here to learn

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

What I don’t understand is, how can a single-celled organism through genetic mutation added NEW genetic information to become a man when the fact that beneficial mutation does not add new information? This you need to explain.

Single cell org

What I don’t understand is, how can a single-celled organism through genetic mutation added NEW genetic information to become a man when the fact that beneficial mutation does not add new information? This you need to explain.

Given the amount of time involved, 3-3.5 billion years of mutations and information added, etc, it's not hard to understand how a single cell organism can evolve and diversify into the plethora of life forms we see around us today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you get the age of argon? By what standard of studies or age assignments? And why they did not test Lucy with C-14 dating method?

That is a good question. First of C-14 is very limited. It cannot be used on objects older than roughly 50,000 years old because there is not enough C14 to give a reliable date after that amount of time. Radiometric dating is based upon material decays and if all of the material is gone one can only say "this is older than "x" years old". If they dated Lucy with C-14 they would at best get a date that said it was older than 50,000 years.


The argon argon method was developed from the potassium argon method of dating. Potassium40 decays into Ar40 and Ca40 (calcium 40). The ratio is measurable and constant so we can get a decay constant for just the K/Ar part. The calcium is not of any use because the isotope is plentiful and background calcium would totally obscure radiometric calcium. Luckily argon is both rare and an inert gas. That means when the crystal formed there would be no argon in it. We have a starting amount for one of our materials. That means we can calculate the original amount of potassium too. The Ar40/Ar39 method allows more accuracy than the original Ar/K method.

Here is an article on both. If you have any questions I will gladly help you.

Argon Geochronology Methods

Please note they also include possible problems with the method since there are almost always ways that a tool can be misused. The people that dated Lucy would have been well aware of possible drawbacks.

 

[shmogie]

It is part of a massive act of cognitive dissonance. If the words aren't there they will reinterpret what is written. Please note how many times the definition of macroevolution that both you and I used, that was based on how it was defined by the coiner of the term was stated to be "wrong". Yet no links were ever supported. I think that the realization that atheists can no more redefine Jesus than creationists can redefine scientific terms may have finally sunk in.

No, it isn´t wrong, it was right in 1927. Your own people have changed it to suit their particular ideas.

Oh boy! That makes two admissions of not understanding the concept of scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

The reason for that definition is because scientists are human and can be irrational at times too. There have been times that scientists have denied clear evidence. This definition helps to take human bias out of the argument.

Let's look at Lucy, it does not matter if she is "partial" or not. Does she fit the model predicted by the evolutionary paradigm? The answer is a clear yes. Therefore like it or not she is scientific evidence for the theory of evolution.

She is evidence that a creature like her existed. How many like fossils have been found ? Enough to prove reproduction of them possible ? Enough to prove a sustainable number existed ? Enough to prove they existed in sustainable numbers long enough for alleged evolutionary aberrancy to take place and survive ?

As to your fascination with an almost 100 year old definition, here is ONE of about FIVE definitions found in college level evolution textbooks written by evolutionists of the word macro evolution.

Evolutionary biology, Douglas Futuyna, 1996
¨ Macro evolution - The origin and diversity of the higher taxa¨

Your old term no longer applies, take a little time and learn this. Evolutionists infinitely better qualified than you use the term differently from one another. Find a different term or phrase, current this time, to harp on incessantly

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would love to hear your side of it. We are here to learn

You have to learn how to crawl before you can learn how to run. Evolution and other basic science first, then abiogenesis. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis since it deals with life after it got here. Whether it arose naturally through abiogenesis, was magicked into place by a deity, or if a passing ET dumped its waste here, the result of any of those would be life which could evolved.

Creationists often try to move the goalposts to abiogenesis and I usually say I will gladly discuss it once they demonstrate that they can understand the theory of evolution.

 

[shmogie]

Yep, my bad. Often I say "life as we see it". And I am willing to discuss abiogenesis once one understands evolution. If a person can't do that then there is no point in going back to how life first appeared.

Bwaaaa ha ha. You, nor anyone else, can show any evidence of abiogenesis. You don´t know what chemicals combined to create life, or where they came from, you don´t know how they created life, you don´t know the environment in which they created life, you don´t know how the information required for life got into these miracle organisms or where it came from.

Other than that, you must know much about it

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it isn´t wrong, it was right in 1927. Your own people have changed it to suit their particular ideas.

Nope, the version that I used was the same as that. You even complained about that. Why are you changing your story?

She is evidence that a creature like her existed. How many like fossils have been found ? Enough to prove reproduction of them possible ? Enough to prove a sustainable number existed ? Enough to prove they existed in sustainable numbers long enough for alleged evolutionary aberrancy to take place and survive ?

Over three hundred Australopithecus afarensis have been found the last that I heard. And of course you are denying the obvious. She is scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. By denying this you only demonstrate a refusal to understand what scientific evidence is.

As to your fascination with an almost 100 year old definition, here is ONE of about FIVE definitions found in college level evolution textbooks written by evolutionists of the word macro evolution.

Evolutionary biology, Douglas Futuyna, 1996
¨ Macro evolution - The origin and diversity of the higher taxa¨

Your old term no longer applies, take a little time and learn this. Evolutionists infinitely better qualified than you use the term differently from one another. Find a different term or phrase, current this time, to harp on incessantly

It is not my fascination. You are projecting your flaws upon others again. And why no link? You need to supply a link when making such a claim, otherwise it is all but worthless. For example the Bible says "there is no God" at least twelve times. That should be obviously out of context, the problem is that your supposed quote could be just as out of context.

My "old term" is just as valid as your newer one since you yourself pointed out that the term is not used today since it is worthless. In fact Linnaean taxonomy is disappearing and being replaced by the more accurate cladistics.

 

[shmogie]

You have to learn how to crawl before you can learn how to run. Evolution and other basic science first, then abiogenesis. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis since it deals with life after it got here. Whether it arose naturally through abiogenesis, was magicked into place by a deity, or if a passing ET dumped its waste here, the result of any of those would be life which could evolved.

Creationists often try to move the goalposts to abiogenesis and I usually say I will gladly discuss it once they demonstrate that they can understand the theory of evolution.

Lol. You must concede it occurred first, before he can´t explain it

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So, you research the evidence, say of E=MC squared. You understand all the equations. You understand all the implications of space time, you understand all the impications of red/blue shift, you understand how gravity can bend light and why, you understand what infinite density means, as well as how a black hole processes matter it has sucked in, etc. NOW you are qualified to evaluate the evidence.

How much more evidence do I need to know that a bridge builder knows what he's doing than to see his bridge standing? Scientists have tamed polio, sent man to the moon, and given us lighting at night. I don't need to read anything or see any more evidence to say conclusively that their science is valid.

But I don't care if you think my views are credible ! Frankly, what you think of anything means nothing to me.

Do you think people care about your opinions? They don't. They care about what you know nd can demonstrate.

why is the Bible not good enough as evidence?

It's great evidence, but only that somebody wrote it.

I hate to be the dumb guy here, but how is "the theory of evolution is correct", again? Can you explain this?

You'll have to do a little investigation on your own. If you are over 40 years old and still don't know, it is because you have not cared before.

Macro evolution has holes big enough in it to drive trucks through. There is significant opposition to the THEORY

Not in the scientific community, which is all that matters. Don't feel picked on. Scientists are also not interested in the opinions of mimes or rodeo clowns, however much controversy might develop among them regarding biological evolution.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Macro evolution has been directly observed, are you sure ? I don't think so. Prove it.

Why?

Aren't you the guy who refuses to defend his assertions and doesn't care what anybody else believes? Do you think that you deserve more than you are willing to give? You called it casting pearls before swine.

Evolution isn;'t a proven fact, that's why it is called a theory.

A comment like that serves as a litmus test for scientific illiteracy. As soon as one makes it, he has identified himself as somebody uninterested in science enough to study its basic and fundamental concepts.

there is no scientific evidence, other than assumption, for abiogenesis.

And you are way behind in abiogenesis research.

Restricted choice : the idea that if condition X is the case, we might see either A or B occur, but that if condition Y is the case, we will see B. Consider flipping a loaded and a fair coin. In one case, heads and tails both come up. In the other, only (or mostly) one or the other.

In this case, if abiogenesis is possible and occurred, we might see ongoing progress in its investigation, or we might hit an insurmountable dead en, If abiogenesis is impossible, we will hit that dead end. That hasn't happened yet after decades of research. New links are continually added to the forming chain.

All evidence can only be interpreted within the framework of a natural explanation, no other possible interpretation is allowed.

Supernaturalism doesn't make any science better. It adds no explanatory or predictive power to any scientific law or theory.

Go ahead and stick religious ideas into any theory of your liking and show how it makes it better.

Macro evolution does not begin with divergent species, it begins with divergent families.

Soundslike you're looking for the biological equivalent of the rather nebulous biblical category of kind.

So then the dozens or hundreds of species in a biological family don't represent evolution? What magic barrier arises to stop that degree of evolution from proceeding further?

How about saying that macroevolution begins above the category of kingdom rather than family? God created a bacteria, a protist, a fungus, an plant, an animal, Noah carried them onto the ark in a basket and saved them all, and then they evolved. Those were the five kinds.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bwaaaa ha ha. You, nor anyone else, can show any evidence of abiogenesis. You don´t know what chemicals combined to create life, or where they came from, you don´t know how they created life, you don´t know the environment in which they created life, you don´t know how the information required for life got into these miracle organisms or where it came from.

Other than that, you must know much about it

Since you demonstrated that you do not even understand what is and what is not evidence you are in no position to make such a claim.

Why does mere evidence frighten you so much? I explained to you why you were wrong about Lucy. The simple fact is that she fits into the evolutionary paradigm. That makes here scientific evidence. There is absolutely no point in helping someone that refuses to understand such basic concepts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And to support an earlier claim, I have this rather old website. At the time of it over 300 Australopithecus afarensis fossils had been found. The number can only be higher today:

The Genus Australopithecus

ETA: Lucy was not the first Aa found. She was merely the most complete. Scientists have found other examples including the hands and feet that were missing from Lucy.