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

[Subduction Zone]

Or, if you can't prove God did it, you can;t prove abiogenisis didn't do it. Exactly the same, the empty theory of the gaps.

You have it backwards. If you want to claim that God did it the burden of proof is upon you. In the same way if we want to claim it was abiognesis the burden of proof is upon us. I am willing to show the evidence for abiogenesis, once we are done with evolution. But since it is a separate topic I will only make the most general corrections right now. You have a "God of the gaps" belief, not us. Once again you are using a term properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You start with "I don't know". What is wrong with that?

Because an honest "I don't know" never leads to creationism.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

So, similarity or shared features define close relationships.

No. That is wrong. It is the PATTERN of shared features that points to common ancestry. That pattern is a nested hierarchy.

Nested hierarchies

Flying is a feature,

That is false. Flying is a behavior, not a morphological feature (i.e. physical characteristic). If you want to compare features, compare the skeletal features of different wings.

Who gets to decide which similar features mean close relationships and which don't ? A list used to bring order suddenly becomes the absolute law ?

Anyone gets to do it, and then present their argument to the scientific community. It's called "doing science".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So, it’s like the theory of evolution first then you hypothesize abiogenesis later on to support the theory of evolution. IOW, abiogenesis “was part of the theory of evolution.”, right?

We view the evolution of the universe in five phases:

[1] Material evolution comes first, in which the galaxies, stars, and chemical elements and minerals formed). The Standard Model of cosmology addresses this.

[2] This is followed by chemical evolution, in which the atoms and organic molecules organized into the first life, or abiogenesis.

[3] Then comes biological evolution, in which the tree of life evolves from this unicellular common ancestor.

[4] Then comes psychological evolution, or the appearance of consciousness and increasing intelligence including human intellect.

[5] And finally, cultural evolution, as we go from animal skins and tents or igloos to the moon and back.​

These problems have not been and will not be solved in that order.

The first of these to be solved was [3], biological evolution, in the mid 19th century, which also contributed to [5] as man began digging (literally)- when did man first settle, or sail the oceans, or use language, tools and fire, or invent religion as paleontologists and archeologists continue to explore these mysteries..

Then, [1] was solved in the 20th century.

Presently, [2] is being solved with abiogenesis research, which is progressing at a rapid pace.

The problem of the emergence of consciousness, [4], will probably be the most intractable.

The insistence to resolve abiogenesis before evolution is a pointless and arbitrary one. We solve these problems as we can.

that would make Lucy a chimp and not a human.

Lucy could not have been a chimp. She was bipedal. She walked upright. Brachiating apes (knuckle walkers) have their foramen magnum, the hole in the skull for the spinal cord to pass in and out of the head located between the occipital (back) and inferior (bottom) aspects of the skull, which is typical for brachiating animals whose spinal cords are more parallel to the ground than ours. Obligate tetrapods (animals vitually always on all fours) like the wolf skull shown below, have theirs even more posteriorly

Lucy's foramen magnum, like ours, is on the inferior (bottom) aspect of the skull, which is typical of animals who walk upright and whose spinal cords are more perpendicular to the ground. Compare here skull and the location of her foramen magnum to that of the chimp and gorilla skulls below.

Lucy is clearly a transitional stage between chimplike creatures with small cranial capacities (around 450 cc), a brow ridge, and a snout similar to modern chimps, but who stood upright,and man, with a brain about three times as large - a missing link if you like.

 

[shmogie]

No. That is wrong. It is the PATTERN of shared features that points to common ancestry. That pattern is a nested hierarchy.

Nested hierarchies



That is false. Flying is a behavior, not a morphological feature (i.e. physical characteristic). If you want to compare features, compare the skeletal features of different wings.



Anyone gets to do it, and then present their argument to the scientific community. It's called "doing science".

Thank you, my point exactly. You are correct, flying by the presence of two wings, or four, or none

 

[Neb]

Just for fun I went looking for this dating of Mt. St Helens. Of course the incredibly dishonest Steve Austin was behind it and he probably made the same error he made in other work that he did:

Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really 1 Million Years Old?

And here is his problem:

"In June of 1992, Dr. Austin collected a 15 lb. block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed, sieved, and processed into a whole rock powder as well as four mineral concentrates. "

When it comes to lava flows xenocrysts are quite common. Especially if the material is already partially crystallized. He picked out individual crystals to date too, and that is all but guaranteed to give you a false old date. When you do so you go after larger identifiable crystals. Those will be crystals that formed before the eruption. Larger crystal do not form quickly. They were formed before the eruption. The way that one dates a very young flow is to go after the background matrix of fine crystals. Then one can hope to have a correct date, but even then one must be cautious.

Steve Austin knows this. He purposefully uses incorrect techniques to "date" objects. That makes him a liar since he knows what he is doing wrong and yet he goes ahead and does so.

The main argument here is, when did it set to zero?

The basic assumption is, natural occurring argon should gassed out, but because of argon occlusion into these minerals, xenocrysts and phenocrysts, it gave different ages on the geochron, but testing the whole rock where it reset to zero is shown 350,000 years in just ten years. That’s the main point of the argument.

Do you understand this?

 

[Neb]

Me too. You lost. And no, your error was explained to you. Let me go over it into more detail. When something is deposited into a sedimentary layer everything in that one layer was deposited at the "same time". At least on a geological time scale. Somewhere below here a ashflow was found and dated. Somewhere above her an ashflow was found and dated. She has to be between those two dates. Do you understand?

Igneous rocks were dated and not the fossils and bones, right? So, they assumed Lucy was a 3.2 million years old human, an Australopithecus afarensis, right? Now, since they can’t use the K-Ar dating method on Lucy’s fossil and bones, why they did not use C-14 then? They knew Lucy was just a chimp and NOT human.

 

[Neb]

I am sorry, you don't know what you are talking about.

Do you? Or you never heard this argument yet? It should be in one of them ToE website.

There are ways to screw up when you date something and that was the case then. You will not find this in peer reviewed literature because the error was so obvious that it would have been rejected. Link an article I will refute it for you. You are relying upon idiots and liars for support. In the world of science real science is done through peer review today.

There goes the real science again. If you want to debate then let’s debate and stop sucking up to academia and when we run out of things to say then we stop.

Nope, the most likely answer is xenocryst or xenolyths.

Guessing again! But you have to admit that it got you searching the internet for answers, right? I really thought you knew science very well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The main argument here is when did it set to zero?

The basic assumption is, natural occurring argon should gassed out, but because of argon occlusion into these minerals, xenocrysts and phenocrysts, it gave different ages on the geochron, but testing the whole rock where it reset to zero is shown 350,000 years in just ten years. That’s the main point of the argument.

Do you understand this?

Your question is poorly asked and it shows a lack of understanding. There are limitations to any dating method, they can be abused, as Steve Austin did. When xenocrysts or xenolyths are involved there is no one "date". All measurements have a certain amount of error in them. Something that you learn if you ever work in the sciences. He goes out of his way to make the error larger than the actual date. This does not refute the dating method.

Do you understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Igneous rocks were dated and not the fossils and bones, right? So, they assumed Lucy was a 3.2 million years old human, an Australopithecus afarensis, right? Now, since they can’t use the K-Ar dating method on Lucy’s fossil and bones, why they did not use C-14 then? They knew Lucy was just a chimp and NOT human.

Correct, but we know that Lucy had to be older than the rock over it and older than the rock it. That gives us a date. There is no "assumption". And no, they did not know that Lucy was a chimp. Whoever told you that was lying and now you are repeating that lie. You may not know that they were lying but you should never ever make a claim against someone that you cannot support. You did just break the Ninth Commandment.


They did not use C14 dating because they are not idiots. They would have to destroy part of the fossil and it would have given them an age that only told them it was more than 50,000 years old. What good would that do? Please note, they would be idiots because they know better. You have not learned your error yet so you have an excuse.

 

[Neb]

Yep, so what?

Nice answer, very scientific. is this what you meant by "scientific method"? last time I heard that was in grade school.

It means that you do not even appear to understand the scientific method.

No, the theory of evolution is not the evidence for abiogenesis. What makes you think that?

You need to understand there is NO evidence of your primitive soup. Now, if there is no evidence of your primitive soup then there is no evidence of your millions of years of evolutions. You can't have true and false at the same time.

Please you need to stop asking foolish questions.

It's another way of saying, I DO NOT KNOW.

Here is a hint, don't try to bury an assumption in your question. It will almost always demonstrate your ignorance when you do so.

Try again with a proper question.

ignorance and ignorant is not really an insult at all, it's just lack of knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you? Or you never heard this argument yet? It should be in one of them ToE website.

Please, try to be honest. I know that science frightens you but it is no excuse to begin to act foolish.

There goes the real science again. If you want to debate then let’s debate and stop sucking up to academia and when we run out of things to say then we stop.

Please, you have no clue as to what real science is. Try to ask proper questions and I will answer them. When you rely on liars an idiots you should not get mad when that is pointed out to you.

Guessing again! But you have to admit that it got you searching the internet for answers, right? I really thought you knew science very well.

No, you would be guessing because you have no clue. I understand this topic well enough not to make the moronic errors that Steve Austin made. If you don't understand something ask questions politely an properly. Claiming that someone is guessing is a personal attack. You did not even link your source but I found it anyway. I explained to you his errors. You do not know enough to understand a simple explanation.

Try again, ask your questions politely and properly and they will be answered. Errors in questions will be pointed out and you can then try again.

 

[Neb]

Your question is poorly asked and it shows a lack of understanding. There are limitations to any dating method, they can be abused, as Steve Austin did. When xenocrysts or xenolyths are involved there is no one "date". All measurements have a certain amount of error in them. Something that you learn if you ever work in the sciences. He goes out of his way to make the error larger than the actual date. This does not refute the dating method.

Do you understand?

Your answer does not have any substance at all. Read the paper and tell me Dr. Austin's errors. It was a blind test by an independent lab.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice answer, very scientific. is this what you meant by "scientific method"? last time I heard that was in grade school.

Please, you have no clue as to what is and what is not scientific. You did not learn your science when you were in grade school I am giving you another chance.

You need to understand there is NO evidence of your primitive soup. Now, if there is no evidence of your primitive soup then there is no evidence of your millions of years of evolutions. You can't have true and false at the same time.

This is an incredibly ignorant statement on your part. Now you once again only demonstrate that you do not even know what is and what is not evidence.

It's another way of saying, I DO NOT KNOW.

No, it is not. I explained to you how a question can be improper "When did you stop beating our wife?" is an improper question.

ignorance and ignorant is not really an insult at all, it's just lack of knowledge.

Correct, I am here to try to help you get over your ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your answer does not have any substance at all. Read the paper and tell me Dr. Austin's errors. It was a blind test by an independent lab.

Wrong again. Please do not make blatantly false claims. Yes, the lab doing the test was independent. So what?

Have you not heard the computing phrase "Garbage in garbage out?" The material he sent the lab could not get a reliable date.

Tell me, have you even seen volcanic rock?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's go over some basic geology. Rock crystals of any size do not form overnight. The material that he chose was dacite. Dacite is an igneous rock, but it is typically a mixture of fine and course crystals.

Dacite - Wikipedia

" It has an aphanitic to porphyritic texture and is intermediate in composition between andesite and rhyolite. "

The example that he found was not aphanitic by his own admission. That would mean that all of the crystals would be too small to be observed by the naked eye. Remember he claimed to have identified and chosen crystals. That means that they had to be large enough to identify. So he had a porphyritic sample. Larger crystals (the porphyritic component) form slowly. They did not form at eruption. They would have a different date from the background:

Porphyritic - Wikipedia

"Porphyritic rocks are formed when a column of rising magma is cooled in two stages. In the first stage, the magma is cooled slowly deep in the crust, creating the large crystal grains, with a diameter of 2 mm or more. In the final stage, the magma is cooled rapidly at relatively shallow depth or as it erupts from a volcano, creating small grains that are usually invisible to the unaided eye."

Steve Austin purposefully chose the larger crystals and dated them. They would give a false older date and he knows enough geology to know that. He purposefully misled his ignorant helpers. He is a liar.

Also, since radiometric dating is an exponential process when there is almost no daughter product in one part of the sample, yet another part has it, when whole rock dating is done the entire rock will have a false older date. If Steve wanted an actual date of eruption he would have tried to separate out as much of the coarser material that he could and then would have dated only the fine matrix. He is quite clear that that is not what he did. Instead he date what was obviously older material and tried to claim that as a "date" for the rock.

 

[Neb]

Correct, but we know that Lucy had to be older than the rock over it and older than the rock it. That gives us a date. There is no "assumption". And no, they did not know that Lucy was a chimp. Whoever told you that was lying and now you are repeating that lie. You may not know that they were lying but you should never ever make a claim against someone that you cannot support. You did just break the Ninth Commandment.

Dr. Johanson's fund was drying up when he found your great x 1000 grandma. Think about that.

They did not use C14 dating because they are not idiots. They would have to destroy part of the fossil and it would have given them an age that only told them it was more than 50,000 years old. What good would that do? Please note, they would be idiots because they know better. You have not learned your error yet so you have an excuse.

Testing with C-14 not gonna destroy nothing but give them the right age and that is, no more than 90 yo chimp. They don't wanna know the truth. You don't wanna know the truth. You rather be used by these lies than to know the truth. You lower yourself to the level of a chimp just because you don't believe in the God of the Bible. If I would say or declare that I don't believe in the God of the Bible, I would NOT let this lies use me as an experiment like a chimp. I would just declare that I don't believe in God, PERIOD.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dr. Johanson's fund was drying up when he found your great x 1000 grandma. Think about that.

So what? That is no excuse for you to make false claims about others.

Testing with C-14 not gonna destroy nothing but give them the right age and that is, no more than 90 yo chimp. They don't wanna know the truth. You don't wanna know the truth. You rather be used by these lies than to know the truth. You lower yourself to the level of a chimp just because you don't believe in the God of the Bible. If I would say or declare that I don't believe in the God of the Bible, I would NOT let this lies use me as an experiment like a chimp. I would just declare that I don't believe in God, PERIOD.

You really can't be this ignorant. You are listening to liars. Lucy is clearly not a chimp and is more like you than she is like a chimp. And you need to quit making personal attacks here. Remember, you are an ape too so when you try to insult chimps you only insult yourself. The existence of a god has nothing to do with this. Most Christians accept the fact that the diversity of life is from evolution. They know that they are evolved beings. That does not stop them from being Christians.

There are no lies in evolution. You cannot find any. I did explain to you how Steve Austin lied.

 

[Neb]

Wrong again. Please do not make blatantly false claims. Yes, the lab doing the test was independent. So what?

there's the "so what" argument again. Going back to grade school

Have you not heard the computing phrase "Garbage in garbage out?" The material he sent the lab could not get a reliable date.

Tell me, have you even seen volcanic rock?

Have you? Have you seen a 68 million yo T-rex?

 

[Subduction Zone]

there's the "so what" argument again. Going back to grade school

You made a grade school level argument. Try to step up your game.

Have you? Have you seen a 68 million yo T-rex?

You mean a 68 million year old T-rex fossil I hope. They died out 68 million years ago. I don't think that I have seen a T-Rex fossil in person, but I have held much older ones.