There is not enough erosion of the continents for them to be many 10s of millions of years old.

[YoursTrue]

It is currently dark outside

Here, too. I call it night. Now evening -- is a different story maybe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, and lest I forget, prokaryotes are rather complex. Do evolutionists really know how they first came about?
"How did prokaryotes start?

It has been theorized that the first-ever prokaryotes appeared a billion years after the earth's crust formation. They initially existed as non-oxygen synthesizing, photosynthetic bacteria that accumulated to form large mounds known as stromatolites."

(Like they know, right?)

How did prokaryotes evolve?

How did prokaryotes evolve?

byjus.com

I am not sure. It appears that some will call all life up to eukaryotes "prokaryotes". And yes, MODERN prokaryotes are very complex. They have had 3.8 billion years to evolve. The earliest of prokaryotes would have been so simple that if seen today they would probably be classified as a different form of life.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am not sure. It appears that some will call all life up to eukaryotes "prokaryotes". And yes, MODERN prokaryotes are very complex. They have had 3.8 billion years to evolve. The earliest of prokaryotes would have been so simple that if seen today they would probably be classified as a different form of life.

righto. (according to science. maybe. If I understand it correctly. Lots and lots of years to evolve...from ... what they don't know == like what happened maybe at abiogenesis to something they know like prokaryotes.)

 

[YoursTrue]

@McBell and @Subduction Zone please do not answer me back since I have only two choices. Guess what they are? 1. to answer, or 2. to not answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

righto. (according to science. maybe. If I understand it correctly. Lots and lots of years to evolve...from ... what they don't know == like what happened maybe at abiogenesis to something they know like prokaryotes.)

Once it appears that the very first life would have been called a "prokaryote." Just do not conflate a modern one with an ancient one.

And I have no problem with you answering me. Just so you know.

 

[YoursTrue]

Once it appears that the very first life would have been called a "prokaryote." Just do not conflate a modern one with an ancient one.

OK, that becomes a matter of interest also. So may I ask if you know that a "modern" prokaryote is different from an ancient one?

 

[YoursTrue]

I am not sure. It appears that some will call all life up to eukaryotes "prokaryotes". And yes, MODERN prokaryotes are very complex. They have had 3.8 billion years to evolve. The earliest of prokaryotes would have been so simple that if seen today they would probably be classified as a different form of life.

The best I can say about this is that it's elusive. Meaning -- is there any evidence showing (proving) what prokaryotes looked like billions of years ago? And I'm glad there are still prokaryotes around, I'll try to look into that when I have more time.

 

[McBell]

The best I can say about this is that it's elusive. Meaning -- is there any evidence showing (proving) what prokaryotes looked like billions of years ago? And I'm glad there are still prokaryotes around, I'll try to look into that when I have more time.

The cyanobacteria have an extensive fossil record. The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. This may be somewhat surprising, since the oldest rocks are only a little older: 3.8 billion years old!​

​

Fossil Record of the Cyanobacteria

 

[YoursTrue]

The cyanobacteria have an extensive fossil record. The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. This may be somewhat surprising, since the oldest rocks are only a little older: 3.8 billion years old!​

​

Fossil Record of the Cyanobacteria

Probably my last post for the night. How did prokaryotes evolve?
"1. It has been theorized that the first-ever prokaryotes appeared a billion years after the earth's crust formation.
2. They initially existed as non-oxygen synthesizing, photosynthetic bacteria that accumulated to form large mounds known as stromatolites.
Evolutionary studies reveal that the initial lineages of bacteria were anaerobic and existed in the Precambrian era."

That is only part of the reference, but #1 says it has been theorized --
And when I get to #2 if I were in that classroom, even if I didn't believe as I do now, I'd have to ask myself, although fleetingly at that time: how do they know that they "initially existed as non-oxygen synthesizing, photosynthetic bacteria," etc...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

wow...

There's that following I have that seeks me out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know it can be done, but in my state I was talking to a guy that I knew and he told me that he was studying to be a high school science teacher. I asked him how he was handling the calculus and he shocked me by telling me that you do not need to take calculus to teach high school physics. And yes, you could remember the formulas and how to apply them, But that is almost the same as cookbook chemistry. It involves a very limited understanding of physics.

The reason that I brought that up is that high school biology teachers often do not need to understand evolution. In fact in this article it states 13% of them are creationists:

https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/high-school-biology-teachers-reluctant-endorse-evolution-class/

I agree it doesn't require acceptance and understanding of the theory of evolution to teach biology. Or cookbook chemistry and physics. I was very fortunate to be taught biology in high school by a church lay speaker with a PhD in zoology that did understand evolution and accepted it. We didn't talk about biblical creationism and kinds in studying the science. What the Bible had to say on the subject didn't come up as the basis for science. But not everyone gets both.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Probably my last post for the night. How did prokaryotes evolve?
"1. It has been theorized that the first-ever prokaryotes appeared a billion years after the earth's crust formation.
2. They initially existed as non-oxygen synthesizing, photosynthetic bacteria that accumulated to form large mounds known as stromatolites.
Evolutionary studies reveal that the initial lineages of bacteria were anaerobic and existed in the Precambrian era."

That is only part of the reference, but #1 says it has been theorized --
And when I get to #2 if I were in that classroom, even if I didn't believe as I do now, I'd have to ask myself, although fleetingly at that time: how do they know that they "initially existed as non-oxygen synthesizing, photosynthetic bacteria," etc...

You've claimed dozens and dozens of times that you reject the theory of evolution and consider--when you actually differentiate the two--natural abiogenesis to be wrong. You cite yourself and your considerable, reason- and evidenced-based evaluation as the basis for this rejection.

The information you want is available to everyone including you and this forum isn't someplace where your demands can be effectively met. Given that you openly claim and declare your rejection, what is the purpose of continually asking these questions over and over? I see no evidence that it is for your personal edification to ponder, consider and weigh and come to some reasoned conclusion. You had your conclusion prior to your first post on this forum and that, as you regularly demonstrate, has not changed.

What incentive is there to address your questions only to have you ignore everything, given that you don't appear to understand most of it, and reiterate your declarations of rejection?

You seem to want to beat your own dead horse and coax everyone else into joining you under the pretext of discussion that never really is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

i dont think you appreciate the point...

Ow, trust me, I do. This is not my first rodeo.

Piltown man, Java man, acheulean axe, homo erectus

One of these does not belong in the same sentence.

is not an ancestor of neandertals nor modern man,

Except Homo Erectus is part of human lineage. Just like Neanderthals and Australopethicenes are.

the "dingo took my baby" case...

No idea what that is supposed to mean.

this isnt about a specific fraud...

Then why do you bring it up?

its about exactly what you guys claim secularists do not do

Que?

...enter into scientific investigation without philosophical aims and intentions

That is what science does, yes. It follows the evidence regardless of where it leads, with no pre-defined goals in mind.
Which can't be said from the religious apologists, who's entire goal is to try and paint the bullseye around the arrow.

That is exactly why continue to press on TEists for example that philosophy comes before the search for knowledge...the Epistomological questions drive our learning.

No idea what you are trying to say.
But anway, it seems you are not aware how many theists are scientists (paleontologists, evolutionary biologists, etc) and how the vast majority of christians actually don't have any problems with accepting the evidence of biology.

You don't seem to realize that all this is a "you" problem.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Somehow I believe on these forums regarding the Bible, Bible-deniers outnumber Bible believers, in whatever form they take. But that doesn't really matter.

I believe that some doctrine believers realize they cannot do anything palpable to support their rejection of science, so they do what they can to keep the debate alive with the idea that as long as it lives they are proven correct.

What I see are people that claim to be the only true believers acting in ways that doesn't fit the model they claim as their own.

But do go on. As a scientist, I appreciate all the evidence that is presented. Even when it isn't intentionally provided.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

download and read Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow.

Why would we listen to a theologian concerning matters of evolutionary history and paleontology?

All of the major work in his book is externally referenced. The point is not whether or not everyone may agree with his claims, but that this book raises some very significant issues that few evolutionists have put together in a single location and that is exactly why this book is so significant. When you see all of these issus side by side in a single published work, the reality of the dilemmas presented becames alarming for naturalisms claims regarding the fossil record.

The only alarming thing here, is you pretending as if a theologian's biased religious opinions are at all relevant to matters of paleontology and evolutionary history.

If he has anything interesting and worthwhile to say, he may publish it in a paletontology paper in an appropriate academic journal.

I'm not interested in his commercial / popular religious propaganda.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

hmm, once again I was thinking...he he, I do think you know sometimes. And where is the real PROOF (there is none beyond speculation) that fish evolved, as one example, to eventually become human beings. You can show all the pictures of fossils and graphs you want, but it is not proof. Yes, fish are still fish, gorillas are still gorillas, etc. Birds are birds even if their beaks change sometimes.

Ow look, the age-old "x are still x" nonsense argument....

How many more times are you going to repeat that falsehood?
How many more times must it be explained to you how it is false?
How many more times are you going to insist on being wrong?

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe that some doctrine believers realize they cannot do anything palpable to support their rejection of science, so they do what they can to keep the debate alive with the idea that as long as it lives they are proven correct.

What I see are people that claim to be the only true believers acting in ways that doesn't fit the model they claim as their own.

But do go on. As a scientist, I appreciate all the evidence that is presented. Even when it isn't intentionally provided.

Well maybe you can help me with this discussion going on in another thread about the trinity. If a person does not believe what the Bible says about many things, including whether Moses or Jesus really existed as written, how can he believe if God is or is not a trinity? Do you have any thoughts about this, please..

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe that some doctrine believers realize they cannot do anything palpable to support their rejection of science, so they do what they can to keep the debate alive with the idea that as long as it lives they are proven correct.

What I see are people that claim to be the only true believers acting in ways that doesn't fit the model they claim as their own.

But do go on. As a scientist, I appreciate all the evidence that is presented. Even when it isn't intentionally provided.

I'm not sure what you mean by "only true believers." What do you think they believe?

 

[YoursTrue]

You've claimed dozens and dozens of times that you reject the theory of evolution and consider--when you actually differentiate the two--natural abiogenesis to be wrong. You cite yourself and your considerable, reason- and evidenced-based evaluation as the basis for this rejection.

The information you want is available to everyone including you and this forum isn't someplace where your demands can be effectively met. Given that you openly claim and declare your rejection, what is the purpose of continually asking these questions over and over? I see no evidence that it is for your personal edification to ponder, consider and weigh and come to some reasoned conclusion. You had your conclusion prior to your first post on this forum and that, as you regularly demonstrate, has not changed.

What incentive is there to address your questions only to have you ignore everything, given that you don't appear to understand most of it, and reiterate your declarations of rejection?

You seem to want to beat your own dead horse and coax everyone else into joining you under the pretext of discussion that never really is.

What information? About prokaryotes? Can you please say at least if ancient (supposedly) prokaryotes are different from current prokaryotes, and how?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well maybe you can help me with this discussion going on in another thread about the trinity. If a person does not believe what the Bible says about many things, including whether Moses or Jesus really existed as written, how can he believe if God is or is not a trinity? Do you have any thoughts about this, please..

I am not a Bible scholar, but I may have some answers. There are prophecies that are troubling in the New Testament. Jesus prophesized that the second coming would be before the last disciple had died. That was almost 2,000 years ago. How many 2,000 year old men have you heard of? A second major problem is that John is quite different from the other Gospels. Jesus repeatedly claims to have been more than just a man in that Gospel. He claims to have always existed. And that the world was made "though him". The concept of a Trinity arose out of those problems and it does seem to have solved it. Somewhat at least.