Life From Dirt?

[YoursTrue]

@shunyadragon I missed the post in which you described what is in volcanic ash, that is why I asked. So if it is a problem, I apologize and will just let be.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here is my guess as to why she is doing this. She had learned that sedimentary rocks are almost never dated absolutely. As you now one usually uses relative dating for sedimentary deposits. She also knows that one can date specific layers absolutely when there is a volcanic deposit of some sort. She will probably try to claim that since those are "sedimentary layers' that they cannot be dated absolutely.

The thing is of course is that if they were "sedimentary" but deposited in a way so that we could date them, then those would be an exception when it comes to sedimentary strata. I know, it is a pitiful argument. I would even concede that volcanic ash could almost be called "sedimentary" since it is deposited as different bits and pieces. That does not matter of course because the time from it leaving the volcano and its deposition is instantaneous on a geologic times scale it is of course still datable.

I believe that some time back the same sort of thing happened involving a report of a modern horse mistakenly dated to the Pleistocene due to the fact that it had been intentionally buried to a depth putting it in a known layer of Pleistocene sediment. I think this lead to all sorts of soil leaching into fossils nonsense. That the initial dating of the skeleton was overturned and explained by more rigorous scientific examination was sort of...overlooked.

 

[YoursTrue]

lava are molten rocks or even partially molten.

the problem is that you are misinformed

sediments are the result of “weathering”, not “melting”. They are two completely different processes, and yet you are confusing lava for sediments.

magma only formed into igneous rocks, sedimentary rocks are formed through crystallising of mineral sediments, and you don’t understand either.

like I said, I am not an expert or qualified geologist. If you want to understand more, then ask @shunyadragon , who is our resident geologist.

gnostic, I don't want to irritate you, so if you don't mind, I do have a lot of questions and thank you for trying. But if possible, I know a lot of people here and elsewhere would make fun and take jabs at people like me -- and so please excuse me if I don't ask too many questions. And who knows? Maybe I'm not capable of learning from you although you try to give me answers. I teach in the artistic world and I cannot teach everyone. Some are skilled teachers with autistic children, I'm not. So please excuse.

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe that some time back the same sort of thing happened involving a report of a modern horse mistakenly dated to the Pleistocene due to the fact that it had been intentionally buried to a depth putting it in a known layer of Pleistocene sediment. I think this lead to all sorts of soil leaching into fossils nonsense. That the initial dating of the skeleton was overturned and explained by more rigorous scientific examination was sort of...overlooked.

Soil does leach into fossils though, doesn't it? The horse fossil notwithstanding.

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon I missed the post in which you described what is in volcanic ash, that is why I asked. So if it is a problem, I apologize and will just let be.

The lava is made of what I call dark minerals and some quartz that cool and result in Basalt Basalt cools quickly therefore it is a dark very fine crystalline rock. When the lava cools deep in the earth it cools slowly and forms coarse crystalline rocks such as Granite and Diorite.

The composition of Basalt: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/basalt#:~:text=Basalts are composed of minute,to veritiess with special names.

Basalts are composed of minute grains of plagioclase feldspar (generally labradorite), pyroxene, olivine, biotite, hornblende, and less than 20% quartz. The mineral nepheline or leucite may associate or proxy the feldspar giving rise to verities with special names.

Volcanic ash is made of the same minerals. Sometimes Silica is ejected in a more pure form and cools to what we call Volcanic glass or Obsidian.

 

[YoursTrue]

The lava is made of what I call dark minerals and some quartz that cool and result in Basalt Basalt cools quickly therefore it is a dark very fine crystalline rock. When the lava cools deep in the earth it cools slowly and forms coarse crystalline rocks such as Granite and Diorite.

The composition of Basalt: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/basalt#:~:text=Basalts are composed of minute,to veritiess with special names.

Basalts are composed of minute grains of plagioclase feldspar (generally labradorite), pyroxene, olivine, biotite, hornblende, and less than 20% quartz. The mineral nepheline or leucite may associate or proxy the feldspar giving rise to verities with special names.

Volcanic ash is made of the same minerals. Sometimes Silica is ejected in a more pure form and cools to what we call Volcanic glass or Obsidian.

Alright. Not contesting this. I would like to know though what composes the liquid? I know it (the lava) is called molten, so doesn't that mean real hot melted minerals of a sort that come out of the volcanic hole? I mean it's all liquid when it erupts, isn't it? Or is it?

 

[shunyadragon]

Alright. Not contesting this. I would like to know though what composes the liquid?

The composition of the liquid is the same as the composition of the Volcanic Ash and Basalt. Though as mention silica eject forms a glssy Obsidian,

I know it (the lava) is called molten, so doesn't that mean real hot melted minerals of a sort that come out of the volcanic hole? I mean it's all liquid when it erupts, isn't it? Or is it?

Well Ash is not liquid and yes Lava is are more like is mix of sludge like stuff and viscus liquid is what is ejected from the volcano and cracks and vents around volcanoes.

There are different kinds of volcanoes. Some are predominately Ash volcanoes like Vesuvious, and often very explosive. Others like the Hawaian Islands are predominately Lava volcanoes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Soil does leach into fossils though, doesn't it? The horse fossil notwithstanding.

Dissolved minerals can leach into fossils. So what? Why ask? Fossils are very very rarely dated absolutely. If they were then leaching would be a problem. But fossils are used for relative dating. Leaching does not affect that.

 

[gnostic]

Wouldn't creation be a mechanism?

no, it will be call magic or witchcraft.

God saying a few words, and light just poof into existence, sounds like God incanting a spell.

And god creating marine life, birds and land animals, all suddenly appearing, sound like more magic or more like debunked spontaneous generation.

and transforming dust from the ground (Genesis) or clay (Quran), into fully grown human male (Adam), require more magic.

magic and miracle are supernatural cause-and-effect, and supernatural don’t exist except in wild imagination or delusions. Plus supernatural equate to unnatural.

The “God did it” magic isn’t a mechanism, it is foolish superstitions.

 

[YoursTrue]

no, it will be call magic or witchcraft.

God saying a few words, and light just poof into existence, sounds like God incanting a spell.

And god creating marine life, birds and land animals, all suddenly appearing, sound like more magic or more like debunked spontaneous generation.

and transforming dust from the ground (Genesis) or clay (Quran), into fully grown human male (Adam), require more magic.

magic and miracle are supernatural cause-and-effect, and supernatural don’t exist except in wild imagination or delusions. Plus supernatural equate to unnatural.

The “God did it” magic isn’t a mechanism, it is foolish superstitions.

Who says they suddenly appeared, although it could happen but evidence shows it did not. Each "day" of creation was not a 24 hour period, as we know it. The word day can refer to a period of time unspecified in the Bible but with a start and an ending.

 

[gnostic]

Who says they suddenly appeared, although it could happen but evidence shows it did not. Each "day" of creation was not a 24 hour period, as we know it. The word day can refer to a period of time unspecified in the Bible but with a start and an ending.

you are ignoring Genesis 2, shortly after creating Adam and Eden, land animals and birds all created at once:

Genesis 2:18-19

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.”19 So OUT OF THE GROUND the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to the man to see what he would call them, and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

Genesis 1 & 2 are two different & conflicting stories of creation.

if you compare 2 from 1, you will see that vegetation wasn’t created until after Adam. While in Genesis 1, plants were created before all animals.

plus, in Genesis 1, fishes and birds were created before all land animals, but in Genesis 2 birds were created at the same time as land animals.

The order of creation is completely different in Genesis 2. Try comparing the 2 chapters, side by side.

You really don’t see, nor understand what you are reading. You clearly don’t understand biology, but here you don’t even understand your precious bible.

you selectively reading, creationists all seemed to be incapable of biblical scholarship, because they each have a log in their eyes.

 

[YoursTrue]

you are ignoring Genesis 2, shortly after creating Adam and Eden, land animals and birds all created at once:

I don't see that at all. It doesn't say that.

 

[Brian2]

you selectively reading, creationists all seemed to be incapable of biblical scholarship, because they each have a log in their eyes.

There is biblical scholarship and biblical scholarship. Many people bring their biases to it and those with one bias accuse the others of bias and blindness.
After 20 centuries of creationists being the scholars of the Bible, in these days we have many skeptics who are Bible scholars and who bring their presumptions about the stories into their work and other skeptics say they are the only truly scholarly Biblical historians.

 

[exchemist]

There is biblical scholarship and biblical scholarship. Many people bring their biases to it and those with one bias accuse the others of bias and blindness.
After 20 centuries of creationists being the scholars of the Bible, in these days we have many skeptics who are Bible scholars and who bring their presumptions about the stories into their work and other skeptics say they are the only truly scholarly Biblical historians.

What is your preferred interpretation for reconciling Genesis 1 and 2?

 

[Brian2]

What is your preferred interpretation for reconciling Genesis 1 and 2?

That Genesis 1 gives the overview of the creation and Genesis 2 is centering on man and what God did when He made man.

 

[exchemist]

That Genesis 1 gives the overview of the creation and Genesis 2 is centering on man and what God did when He made man.

Sure. But how do you reconcile the conflicting creation sequences?

 

[Brian2]

Sure. But how do you reconcile the conflicting creation sequences?

I see Gen 2 as not a full creation account but as showing God creating man and then when God makes animals for man to name, that is not the time God created all the animals, that is just a bunch of animals God created for man to see and name and the other created animals were already roaming around. Same with when God planted the garden, that is not the creation of plants, that is just God planting a garden for the man, and plants already existed outside the garden.

 

[gnostic]

I don't see that at all. It doesn't say that.

Yeah, selective blindness. You'll see what you want to see, You'll believe what you want to believe...

...selective blindness, plus confirmation biases, BIG TIME!

Ok.

Look at the order of Genesis 1, for just the creation of life:

1. Plants - 3rd day (1:11-12)
2. Marine life & birds - 5th day (1:20-22)
3. Land animals - 6th day (1:24-25)
4. Humans - 6th day (1:26-27)

Genesis 2 is the following:

1. Human (Adam only) (2:7)
2. Plants (garden of Eden) (2:8-9)
3. Land animals & birds (2:18-19)
4. Human (Eve) (2:21-23)

Before God created Adam in verse 2:7, an earlier verse clearly stated there were no plants whatsoever (2:5), when he created Adam:

Genesis 2:5 ...when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no vegetation of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground,

These 2 verses (2:5 and 2:7) completely contradicted Genesis 1, when vegetation (1:11-12) and humans (1:26-27) were created.

This revealed that Genesis 1 & Genesis 2 are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STORIES, and they can't be both right.

But of course, as I usually see creationists, like you, @YoursTrue , you will ignore it, by making some lame excuses as you usually do.

 

[gnostic]

Same with when God planted the garden, that is not the creation of plants, that is just God planting a garden for the man, and plants already existed outside the garden.

wrong.

genesis 2:5 clearly stated there were “no plants” and “no vegetation“ at all, when god created Adam:

Genesis 2:5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no vegetation of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground…

Just like I said, creationists all have selective blindness, they see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe.

They read what‘s right from of them, and cannot comprehend the contradictions as if the flaws & contradictions don’t exist.

Not only many creationists cannot understand even basic science, they are also incompetent when it come to reading the Bible.

this is why I don’t take creationists seriously, even when they are interpreting biblical passages, because as far as they are concerned, the Bible is infallible & inerrant, simply because they believed the Bible was written by God, not by humans.

creationists are like this:

Matthew 7:3-4 3 “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye but do not notice the log in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye?”

 

[gnostic]

There is biblical scholarship and biblical scholarship. Many people bring their biases to it and those with one bias accuse the others of bias and blindness.
After 20 centuries of creationists being the scholars of the Bible, in these days we have many skeptics who are Bible scholars and who bring their presumptions about the stories into their work and other skeptics say they are the only truly scholarly Biblical historians.

And you are telling me, you are never biased?

I gave exactly the orders of two creation stories. But instead of seeing the contradictions right in front of your face, you are making excuses, as I would expect all creationists would do.

There are no doubt at all, that sequences of events in these 2 chapters, are inconsistent and contradictory, but you and @YoursTrue will never admit it.

Do you really comprehend Genesis 2:5, that there were no plants and no vegetation, when God created Adam (2:7)? Do you not see how that these 2 verses contradict the order in Genesis 1 (plants, first; humans, last)?

if you cannot, then you are hopeless & incompetent in understanding the Genesis creation, are actually 2 different myths. Both orders cannot be right, unless you’re selective blind.