Jump to content


Photo

From "building Blocks" To All Life On Earth


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#1 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 29 July 2017 - 08:36 AM

"Is this the earliest life on Earth? Pioneering laser technique reveals evidence of 3.7 BILLION-year-old microbes in jewel-studded rocks in Greenland"

 

This is just plain irresponsible reporting.

 

The article begins by stating scientists have found "remains of Earth's oldest organisms," allegedly 3.7 billion-year-old microbes.

 

But, farther down in the article it says, "The technique helped the researchers to pinpoint exactly where the building blocks of life, including carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphate, were found within the rock."

 

So, now it wasn't remains of actual microbes they had found, but the "building blocks" of these alleged microbes, oxygen, etc. Except that the most common element on earth, the one building block without which any life can't exist ... hydrogen ... was missing.

 

Can someone explain to me:

 

1) Apparently, the previous discovery of these building blocks of life were in Australia from 3.34 billion years ago. OK, literally polar opposites apart in location and in a relatively short time span abiogenesis occurred not once, but twice?

 

2) So, building blocks equal something complete? I've got some building blocks, literally, and some other assorted construction materials scattered around my back porch from when we remodeled our house that I haven't carted off to the dump yet. Any bets that nobody in their right mind would say, "Oh, you've got a kitchen on your back porch."

 

3) A few certain base elements are found somewhere and they call it a microbe and attribute it to having life?

 

4) Any time scientists find a similar combination of these building block elements they can assume it represents the origin of life? Like on the moon, on Mars?

 

It seems scientists are making a lot of self-serving assumptions that even a modicum of common sense would refute.



#2 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 29 July 2017 - 10:51 AM

Dave said:

Arizona
Posted 29 July 2017 - 09:36 AM
"Is this the earliest life on Earth? Pioneering laser technique reveals evidence of 3.7 BILLION-year-old microbes in jewel-studded rocks in Greenland"
 
This is just plain irresponsible reporting.
 
The article begins by stating scientists have found "remains of Earth's oldest organisms," allegedly 3.7 billion-year-old microbes.
 
But, farther down in the article it says, "The technique helped the researchers to pinpoint exactly where the building blocks of life, including carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphate, were found within the rock."
 
So, now it wasn't remains of actual microbes they had found, but the "building blocks" of these alleged microbes, oxygen, etc. Except that the most common element on earth, the one building block without which any life can't exist ... hydrogen ... was missing.
 
Can someone explain to me:
 
1) Apparently, the previous discovery of these building blocks of life were in Australia from 3.34 billion years ago. OK, literally polar opposites apart in location and in a relatively short time span abiogenesis occurred not once, but twice?
 
2) So, building blocks equal something complete? I've got some building blocks, literally, and some other assorted construction materials scattered around my back porch from when we remodeled our house that I haven't carted off to the dump yet. Any bets that nobody in their right mind would say, "Oh, you've got a kitchen on your back porch."
 
3) A few certain base elements are found somewhere and they call it a microbe and attribute it to having life?
 
4) Any time scientists find a similar combination of these building block elements they can assume it represents the origin of life? Like on the moon, on Mars?
 
It seems scientists are making a lot of self-serving assumptions that even a modicum of common sense would refute.

I take it you when you talk about life you mean biological life? Life itself has no building blocks. God is life and he had no beginning and no end. God uses his life to animate matter. Therfore, life is not a combonation of materials. Like information life has no physical properties. It is a component of God.

#3 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 29 July 2017 - 09:10 PM

"Is this the earliest life on Earth? Pioneering laser technique reveals evidence of 3.7 BILLION-year-old microbes in jewel-studded rocks in Greenland"

 

This is just plain irresponsible reporting.

 

The article begins by stating scientists have found "remains of Earth's oldest organisms," allegedly 3.7 billion-year-old microbes.

 

But, farther down in the article it says, "The technique helped the researchers to pinpoint exactly where the building blocks of life, including carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphate, were found within the rock."

 

So, now it wasn't remains of actual microbes they had found, but the "building blocks" of these alleged microbes, oxygen, etc. Except that the most common element on earth, the one building block without which any life can't exist ... hydrogen ... was missing.

 

Can someone explain to me:

 

1) Apparently, the previous discovery of these building blocks of life were in Australia from 3.34 billion years ago. OK, literally polar opposites apart in location and in a relatively short time span abiogenesis occurred not once, but twice?

 

2) So, building blocks equal something complete? I've got some building blocks, literally, and some other assorted construction materials scattered around my back porch from when we remodeled our house that I haven't carted off to the dump yet. Any bets that nobody in their right mind would say, "Oh, you've got a kitchen on your back porch."

 

3) A few certain base elements are found somewhere and they call it a microbe and attribute it to having life?

 

4) Any time scientists find a similar combination of these building block elements they can assume it represents the origin of life? Like on the moon, on Mars?

 

It seems scientists are making a lot of self-serving assumptions that even a modicum of common sense would refute.

 

1) 3.7 - 3.34 = 0.36 or 360 million years, not exactly what I would call a "short time". I don't think it is inconceivable that after 360 million years microbes were able to spread all across the globe, and if we find them (or signs of them) in rock today there is a good chance they were quite abundant and not necessarily contained in the one geographical location we found them in.

 

That said, many scientists think there were multiple abiogenesis events in early Earth. One of my professors in a lecture about the origins of life gave the number of 50+ abiogenesis events; that wasn't his personal belief, he was just mentioning to the class that that is what some believe. IIRC online I have found some scientists say there might have been 70 or more (I have a vague mental picture of someone suggesting over 100) separate abiogenesis events, but I think they are considered a bit extreme by their colleagues. The point being that it would not be strange in contemporary science to suggest multiple origins of life. Not to ramble on, but given the ages of the rock (3.7 and 3.34 billion) I would suspect that they came from the same abiogenesis event.

 

2-3) Maybe not a kitchen in your back porch, but imagine if you never removed them and someone found those items a thousand years from now, surely it wouldn't be crazy for them to suggest that there was a building, perhaps a house, on that plot of land.

 

I haven't found too much detail on this specific case, will have to look some more tomorrow or something. My speculation is that it isn't that they simply found a few base elements, but they found them in a specific order like long chains with a carbon backbone and perhaps with a specific isotope that indicates life (e.g. life prefers to use C12, and if the ratio of C12 to other isotopes is significantly higher than the natural ratio then that would be a sign for life).

 

4) The reality is that most evidence for things like this are going to be indirect due to the nature of the problem. For example on Mars we see plumes of methane gas being expelled into the atmosphere from below the surface. Very strange to say the least. Last time I checked no one has been able to take an isotope measurement of the methane, which contains carbon as methane is CH4. Some microbes produce methane as a bi-product of their metabolism, but it is possible that the methane on Mars is produced by some weird geochemical process. If someone were to take an isotope measurement and the carbon ratio is highly favored towards C12 that would be evidence that the methane plumes are biological, but not a guarantee.
 



#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 July 2017 - 02:51 AM

The problem is Goku, evidence of life is evidence of life. Not evidence of the creation of life from non-life.

 

Of course if they date all of those shall we say "under-rocks" to be incredibly ancient knowing they find hardly anything in them except micro-things, then obviously it all seems rather circular, especially if that is nothing more than pre-flood sediment.

 

The inescapable fact is that the Roraima case of the pollen really is a case of pollen existing "then".

 

http://creation.com/roraima-pollen

 

Why do I mention this? Well if the shoe were on the other foot and creation was the accepted theory, I can well imagine them touting the pre-Cambrian pollen as something significant, proof for example of angiosperms in the garden. It of course would make no sense at all if pre-Cambrian angiosperms had already evolved. 

 

In a similar case I have known some evolutionists to argue that there exists, (amusingly), convergent angiosperms;

 

 

Not only does the old date make us stand up and take notice, but an analysis of the chemistry of the amber is even more surprising. The chemistry turned out to be that observed only from flowering plants (angiosperms) that supposedly had not yet evolved:

“However, the most remarkable aspect of the newly discovered Carboniferous amber is that it has a molecular composition that has been seen only from angiosperms, which appeared much later in the Early Cretaceous.”4

So, do the researchers suggest that flowering plants evolved earlier? No, they make it clear that they are not suggesting this.5 Rather they reject the idea that the amber is from flowering plants because of evolution:

“In any case, this 320-million-year-old amber is certainly not from angiosperms, which arose almost 200 million years later.”4

 

Goku, surely you can see how circular this argument it? It's like saying this; "we didn't bother dating a bunch of dinos they say will date as young because after all, these dinosaurs are 75 million years old."

 

Can you see the circular, begging-the-question, assumptions in this type of reason?

 

Conclusion; There are plenty of reasons and finds, that suggest to me we also find small things like pollen in, "ancient" rock. There is better direct evidence which clearly thwarts evolutionary belief. It is clear that angiosperms are found in 320 myo amber and pre-cambrian rock, and 300 myo fossilised Wollemi pine trees also, because it isn't a record of evolution.



#5 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 30 July 2017 - 07:34 AM

uh huh, right.

koonin explicitly states that it would be a seeming miracle if it happened (abiogenesis) at all.

whether there was 50 , 100, or 1000 abiogenesis events, it still doesn't explain how animal phyla arrived here without leaving a trace as to how they did.
it does nothing to supply the missing transitionals between animal phyla.

also, 50 to 100 abiogenesis events?
then how in the world can you hold "common descent" so dearly, especially when there is more than 1 interpretation to common descent data.

#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 July 2017 - 07:55 AM

 

 

What If: also, 50 to 100 abiogenesis events?
then how in the world can you hold "common descent" so dearly, especially when there is more than 1 interpretation to common descent data

 

Yeah it does kind of smack of covering both bases, Goku. On the one hand it seems you would argue there is certainly a phylogenetic tree with a trunk and that the tree of Darwin is real, on the other hand it seems you are entertaining 100 trees.

 

But there are no trees in Koonin's garden, my lad. :P



#7 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 30 July 2017 - 08:09 AM

interestingly, koonin does indeed mention a "phylogenic forest" in at least one of his manuscripts.
this doesn't bode well for common descent, especially when koonin says phyla arrived here radially from eukaryote super groups instead of a bifurcating tree like pattern.
IOW, there is no evidence phyla descended from one another.

this also raises the very interesting question of "what happened to the higher classifications of animals?"

#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 July 2017 - 10:58 AM

 

 

What If: this doesn't bode well for common descent, especially when koonin says phyla arrived here radially from eukaryote super groups instead of a bifurcating tree like pattern.
IOW, there is no evidence phyla descended from one another.

 

Blue = no need to explain, I know what it means mate, I know the issue between what the facts show and what the tree expounds, and there is definite disparity between Darwin's conjectural, "tree" and reality.

 

But it seems to me evolution is unfalsifiable if it can predict both a tree or a forest of them. It begs the question; "then what doesn't show evolution?"



#9 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 30 July 2017 - 11:42 AM

The problem is Goku, evidence of life is evidence of life. Not evidence of the creation of life from non-life.

 

I don't think I said otherwise; the link between abiogenesis and the candidates for the oldest signs of life is that it puts a lower bound on when abiogenesis happened. 
 

Of course if they date all of those shall we say "under-rocks" to be incredibly ancient knowing they find hardly anything in them except micro-things, then obviously it all seems rather circular, especially if that is nothing more than pre-flood sediment.

 

The inescapable fact is that the Roraima case of the pollen really is a case of pollen existing "then".

 

http://creation.com/roraima-pollen

 

Why do I mention this? Well if the shoe were on the other foot and creation was the accepted theory, I can well imagine them touting the pre-Cambrian pollen as something significant, proof for example of angiosperms in the garden. It of course would make no sense at all if pre-Cambrian angiosperms had already evolved. 

 

In a similar case I have known some evolutionists to argue that there exists, (amusingly), convergent angiosperms;


Not only does the old date make us stand up and take notice, but an analysis of the chemistry of the amber is even more surprising. The chemistry turned out to be that observed only from flowering plants (angiosperms) that supposedly had not yet evolved:“However, the most remarkable aspect of the newly discovered Carboniferous amber is that it has a molecular composition that has been seen only from angiosperms, which appeared much later in the Early Cretaceous.”4

So, do the researchers suggest that flowering plants evolved earlier? No, they make it clear that they are not suggesting this.5 Rather they reject the idea that the amber is from flowering plants because of evolution:“In any case, this 320-million-year-old amber is certainly not from angiosperms, which arose almost 200 million years later.”4

 

 

Goku, surely you can see how circular this argument it? It's like saying this; "we didn't bother dating a bunch of dinos they say will date as young because after all, these dinosaurs are 75 million years old."

 

Can you see the circular, begging-the-question, assumptions in this type of reason?

 

Conclusion; There are plenty of reasons and finds, that suggest to me we also find small things like pollen in, "ancient" rock. There is better direct evidence which clearly thwarts evolutionary belief. It is clear that angiosperms are found in 320 myo amber and pre-cambrian rock, and 300 myo fossilised Wollemi pine trees also, because it isn't a record of evolution.

 

 

The Roraima pollen is from a 1966 paper, and is far from an inescapable fact. My information comes from this link: https://sites.google...eology/roraima

 

I suppose the first thing to mention is that a 2003 paper does date the rock layer in question to 1.8 to 1.9 billion years, which is clearly Precambrian.

 

While no pictures exist of the pollen, the people who identified the pollen were professional palynologists who do this kind of thing for a living. So it appears that the pollen really was in this Precambrian rock.

 

The next thing to notice is that these palynologists disagreed on the type of pollen found ranging from various Mesozoic to Cenozoic/Tertiary/Pliocene pollen with one of the few constants being that it wasn't modern pollen.

 

One idea proposed, which I think is the most likely explanation, is that evolution is a fraud the pollen grains from various time periods were carried away by water and were lodged in the rock's cleavage planes. The 1966 paper had this little gem (according to my link above):

 

"T. van der Hammen (Leiden) recognizes a mixture of Mesozoic and Cenozoic elements, but suspects that they represent foreign material concentrated along cleavage planes as, after cleaning fragments ultrasonically, he found the matrix practically barren."

 

The link goes on to explain that the Precambrian rock in question was uplifted and exposed to ground water starting around 110 million years ago (in the Mesozoic) as determined by a 2014 paper. Another excerpt from the link is as follows, and fyi the "hornfels" are the rocks in question:

 

"The second explanation argues that the hornfels were too impermeable for pollen and spore contamination.... Proponents of the second hypothesis also argued that if the pollen and spores infiltrated into the subsurface over millions of years, why do the samples not contain mixtures of pollen grains of different ages?  However, the rocks probably do contain a mixture of Tertiary and Mesozoic pollen.  Considering that the different experts interviewed by Stainforth (1966) dated the pollen and spores anywhere from Mesozoic to Pliocene and that the Roraima Supergroup was only uplifted and exposed to near-surface groundwater in the last 110 million years (late Early Cretaceous) or so (Mecchia et al. 2014, p. 118), a mixture of pollen and spore contaminants of different Mesozoic to Tertiary ages would be expected."

 

Conclusion: the Precambrian pollen is contamination due to the uplifting of the rock during the Mesozoic in which pollen from the Mesozoic and Cenozoic was carried by water into the cleavage planes of said rock. An interesting argument I will admit, but alas I don't see it ultimately supporting YEC or destroying the main-stream paradigm.



#10 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 July 2017 - 12:25 PM

That's all well and good Goku, we can argue the details of the Roraima pollen back and forth and both be pedantic. You can argue contamination, I can insist it isn't...etc but the point most germane to me is that this won't alter the fact that we still have a 300 myo wollemi pine fossil and amber containing the same components that come from angiosperms.

 

I'm not sure why you said "evolution is a fraud" and crossed it out. I myself wouldn't take an extreme position against evolutionists. Your explanation is that it's plausible it could be contamination which is fair enough, it is fairly plausible if I am to be objective. I don't really take a position of anti-evolution in the sense of a conspiracy, I do believe the scientists are just looking for an explanation and they believe it can fit with evolution. 

 

So I myself do believe men have simply convinced themselves evolution is an entertainable notion. For me, it can't be entertained because no amount of wind and precipitation will carve those faces on mount Rushmore. ;)


  • Blitzking likes this

#11 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 30 July 2017 - 02:06 PM

That's all well and good Goku, we can argue the details of the Roraima pollen back and forth and both be pedantic. You can argue contamination, I can insist it isn't...etc but the point most germane to me is that this won't alter the fact that we still have a 300 myo wollemi pine fossil and amber containing the same components that come from angiosperms.
 
I'm not sure why you said "evolution is a fraud" and crossed it out. I myself wouldn't take an extreme position against evolutionists. Your explanation is that it's plausible it could be contamination which is fair enough, it is fairly plausible if I am to be objective. I don't really take a position of anti-evolution in the sense of a conspiracy, I do believe the scientists are just looking for an explanation and they believe it can fit with evolution. 
 
So I myself do believe men have simply convinced themselves evolution is an entertainable notion. For me, it can't be entertained because no amount of wind and precipitation will carve those faces on mount Rushmore. ;)



Yes indeed... They get all caught up with notions like "Change over Time" "Natural Selection" "Micro + Time = Macro Evolution" "Random Mutations" and all such distractions that remove the focus from what the issue is REALLY about, which is Mud turning into Microbes which turn into Microbiologists.... They conveniently ignore / forget / dont think about ALL OF THE NEEDED STEPS Required for that to have ever actually happened in REALITY.... An ameoba has ZERO Interlocked VITAL Organs working together in tandem... Man has 10. (With all of the complicated support systems... How (And why) does that happen SLOWLY?
What would be a plausible ORDER for those 10 Organs? These guys love to borrow from God's creation and jump way ahead and talk about "Survival of the Fittest" while IGNORING the 8000 lb Elephant in the room which is the ARRIVAL of the fittest..

Satan has blinded generations of people with his greatest lie of "Evolution"

"Evolution can be thought of as sort of a magical religion. Magic is simply an effect without a cause, or at least a competent cause. 'Chance,' 'time,' and 'nature,' are the small gods enshrined at evolutionary temples. Yet these gods cannot explain the origin of life. These gods are impotent. Thus, evolution is left without competent cause and is, therefore, only a magical explanation for the existence of life..."

(Dr. Randy L. Wysong, instructor of human anatomy and physiology.

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?"

(Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

"Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudians and Marxism into the Nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather."

(Dr. David Berlinski Mathematician / Genius)

#12 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 30 July 2017 - 03:55 PM

Your explanation is that it's plausible it could be contamination which is fair enough, it is fairly plausible if I am to be objective.

 
Good to see that some objectivity has softened your previous dogmatic stance on this particular issue.

 

the point most germane to me is that this won't alter the fact that we still have a 300 myo wollemi pine fossil and amber containing the same components that come from angiosperms.


What is your source for this date of 300 myo for the Wollemi pine ? I think that's the approx. age of the first conifers not the Wollemi Pine in particular.

I'm not sure why this "living fossil" is seen as some sort of strike against evolution by you. The most recent fossil is about 2 million years old (found in Tasmania). Why would you expect a relic population to provide fossils for us to find in the meantime ?
 
As for angiosperms, instead of scrabbling around with pollen in metamorphic rock and organic molecules in amber an actual find of an angiosperm macrofossil in the Precambrian would be unexplainable according to evolutionary theory but alas they only occur much higher in the record, and well after gymnosperms such as Wollemi appear.
 

So I myself do believe men have simply convinced themselves evolution is an entertainable notion. For me, it can't be entertained..


Why not, couldn't God have created evolution as the process to diversify life ? Or can you not entertain that notion ?



#13 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 30 July 2017 - 08:09 PM

"from building blocks to all life on earth"

you know, i can imagine the same thing was said in 1953 when miller-urey conducted their famous experiment.

when scientists such as koonin says we have no plausible scenario for the arrival of life then it's safe to say it's something more than a "missing catalyst" or somesuch.

about gokus strikeout:
i too wonder why you would do such a thing.
it isn't "evolution is a fraud", it's what surrounds evolution, that's the fraud.
i'm quite positive arrowsmith can provide the gory details of how that can be accomplished.

#14 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 31 July 2017 - 02:21 AM

 

 

Wibble: Good to see that some objectivity has softened your previous dogmatic stance on this particular issue.

 

Don't be two things Wibble. Don't be opportunistic and mendacious, it's an ugly combination. I am not and never was, "dogmatic" about this issue. Stop trying to always make these arguments about the arguer rather than the argument.

 

All I was saying is that a contamination is plausible. All that means is that it seems like a realistic scenario that is possible. That isn't a declaration that I agree it was contamination.

 

You can make an argument it was contamination but there is an argument it isn't which seems to be as strong if not stronger. So then why choose the conclusion it's contamination? It is still possible it isn't contamination, and if it isn't contamination that means pollen from angiosperms is found in pre-Cambrian rock. But the true reason I won't argue it with Goku is that I myself fell into the red-herring trap by mentioning it to begin with, for the "show me a bunny in the Cambrian" argument is a misunderstanding of the flood model, which says that layers AFTER the Cambrian are the same age, so I don't have to chase that particular goose. :acigar:

 

 

 

Wibble: I'm not sure why this "living fossil" is seen as some sort of strike against evolution by you. The most recent fossil is about 2 million years old (found in Tasmania). Why would you expect a relic population to provide fossils for us to find in the meantime ?

 

You're right, between then and now pines are silent. It seems very consistent with a flood, whereas a history of evolution might show pines existing between 300 mya and 2 mya. But with a flood we obviously don't see the rocks as a history of earth, so we wouldn't expect pines throughout the record.

 

I don't see it as a strike against evolution as such, I just see it as one more piece of evidence against it, along with all the other living fossils like the Funnel nose Ray, the Pelican spider, Coelacanth, horseshoe crab, etc...the examples are well known so to dispute the dates seems pointless. Then there are all of the unchanges species along with the living fossils. (see my list of unchanged organisms) :P

 

Conclusion: I don't have to find any "modern" form in, "ancient" rock, because obviously if we find say a, "modern" species only in, "modern" rock then from our perspective that rock and that species and the "older" rocks are contemporaneous, but it is just the cherry on the cake if we also happen to find a, "modern" species in, "ancient" rock.

 

(all epithets highlighted in red)

 

Then there is the posteriori changing of the goal posts. A jellyfish is now only called "ancient" because it is NOW found as a fossil in a much earlier period. BUT, and here is the point; BEFORE it was found, had you found it in that "age" of rock, it would have been out-of-place.

 

This is a problem, because when you say, "show me a modern form in old rock" then I should be able to show you a jellyfish which was not "ancient" but you would likely say, "no, they're ancient".

 

See the problem? If I do show you one out-of-place, you just re-label it as "ancient" and push back evolution to an earlier date, if you can't get away with arguing contamination. :gotcha:



#15 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 31 July 2017 - 05:57 AM

 

Wibble: Good to see that some objectivity has softened your previous dogmatic stance on this particular issue.

 
Don't be two things Wibble. Don't be opportunistic and mendacious, it's an ugly combination. I am not and never was, "dogmatic" about this issue.

 


By searching for the word "Roraima" on this forum, 13 hits come up, mostly from your posts: (bold mine)
 

So the power of the evidence increases the further back you go in evolutionary years, because if you have pollen in the pre-cambrian, like the proven case of Roraima


Pollen - (Roraima) an indisputable case of pre-Cambrian 550 million years or so.


They have also found pollen in the pre-Cambrian at Roraima, and unbreakable case where contamination wasn't an option, it remained a mystery to evolutionists, they never found an answer for it


The pre-cambrian pollen at Roraima, is a pretty water-tight case


All looks pretty dogmatic in your position to me, no apparent openness to an alternative view shown when you have spoken on this topic before.



#16 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 31 July 2017 - 07:17 AM

 

 

Blitzking: Yes indeed... They get all caught up with notions like "Change over Time" "Natural Selection" "Micro + Time = Macro Evolution" "Random Mutations" and all such distractions that remove the focus from what the issue is REALLY about, which is Mud turning into Microbes which turn into Microbiologists.

 

That's exactly it. They get "caught up" in rather superficial things that really don't prove all that much and forget the goo-to-you claim is not an entertainable notion.

 

 

 

Wibble: By searching for the word "Roraima" on this forum, 13 hits come up, mostly from your posts: (bold mine)

 

Quote-mining what I have said. In fact I didn't actually say that because the case of Roraima is indisputable that this means I have a dogmatic stance about the history of events on earth.

 

Putting your spin on my out-of-context comments isn't a valid tactic in debate, Wibble. Even Goku acknowledged that when he said; "While no pictures exist of the pollen, the people who identified the pollen were professional palynologists who do this kind of thing for a living. So it appears that the pollen really was in this Precambrian rock."

 

So instead of jumping to conclusions, you need to ask me what I specifically mean. What I specifically mean is it's a proven case that the pollen was in that rock. That doesn't mean I am of the dogmatic position that it is 100% an absolute proven certainty that this means it isn't contamination, because historical hypotheses don't offer such strong conclusions. How can I ultimately know how and when it got there? I can't, not from circumstantial forensics way after it happened!

 

In context I just mean that the case is strong. You can formulate an explanation for old-age evo, that is plausible and that explanation is going to be pretty much as good as the next one. We can't know because we weren't there.

 

Also it's the genetic fallacy to refer to what something said a long time ago, as though it still has relevance now. If you are quoting me from a time I pretty much would have referred to myself as YEC, how then can that have any baring on the conversation? But that doesn't mean those old comments mean I am dogmatic. I have never said that a historical, conjectural model of a proposed history, is strong science.

 

 

 

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue[1]) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.


#17 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 31 July 2017 - 07:35 AM

Of course the problem with contamination-arguments for me is they usually commit two fallacies, an argument from ignorance and special pleading.

 

If science is objective, if we find a trilobite in Cambrian rock there wouldn't be any explanations for contamination, or if we find a dino in the Cretaceuous there wouldn't be an explanation of contamination. So then if they find something like pollen in rock too old, they obviously do treat the evidence differently. Instead of taking it for granted the pollen is that old like they would the trilobite or the dinosaur, they special plead, (double standard), and they only do that because the evidence doesn't fit with evolution.

 

If we questioned them and they were honest it would go like this;

 

"You have just found a dino in that Cretaceous rock. What do you conclude?"

Evo; "Yes we expect that, we conclude it is that old and that's in line with evolution."

"But this pollen, what do you conclude?"

"It's contamination because it's not in line with evolution".

 

So then, if it is in line with evolution we have one conclusion and no possible contamination argument but if it is not in line there is a great effort to create a conjectural scenario to save evolution, and "because you can't disprove our scenario and you've no evidence it wasn't contamination, therefore it was contamination like we say, or at least we are happy with that conclusion" (argument from ignorance)

 

So for me personally Wibble, I think a more objective evaluation counts more, logically speaking. If we have a scientist who doesn't care about evolution and just wants to be objective, I think it likely he would have no trouble in assigning pollen in a pre-Cambrian rock to that age the same as he would assign that age to the other things found in rock of that age.

 

Why should I agree it is contamination, without also saying that all other things in Pre-Cambrian rocks are contaminants? For example, do you believe Goku's scientist explanation would exist had they not found pollen in that rock, and they would be arguing that those rocks are contamination of the Pre-Cambrian? No, the only reason they argue contamination is because they found pollen there.



#18 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 31 July 2017 - 08:54 AM

If we questioned them and they were honest it would go like this;
 
"You have just found a dino in that Cretaceous rock. What do you conclude?"
Evo; "Yes we expect that, we conclude it is that old and that's in line with evolution."
"But this pollen, what do you conclude?"
"It's contamination because it's not in line with evolution".
 
So then, if it is in line with evolution we have one conclusion and no possible contamination argument but if it is not in line there is a great effort to create a conjectural scenario to save evolution, and "because you can't disprove our scenario and you've no evidence it wasn't contamination, therefore it was contamination like we say, or at least we are happy with that conclusion" (argument from ignorance)

some will read mikes post above and say "noooo, that's just a creationist talking"
the unfortunate truth is, the above actually happens.
valid experimental results (waddington for example) has indeed been dismissed because it didn't jive with what evolution is thought to be.

i can understand why something like this wouldn't immediately be embraced, but to discount the above results for 70+ years is completely over the top.
  • mike the wiz and Gneiss girl like this

#19 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 31 July 2017 - 02:15 PM

Quote-mining what I have said. In fact I didn't actually say that because the case of Roraima is indisputable that this means I have a dogmatic stance about the history of events on earth.

I didn't say you were. I stated that it was in reference to this particular case (Roraima pollen). I was actually giving you praise for allowing some objectivity to apparently shift your position on a specific topic that you appeared dogmatic about before (that the pollen found could not be contamination and proved the presence of angiosperms at the time the rock was originally formed). Not sure why you needed to get a bee in your bonnet.

 

Putting your spin on my out-of-context comments isn't a valid tactic in debate, Wibble. Even Goku acknowledged that when he said; "While no pictures exist of the pollen, the people who identified the pollen were professional palynologists who do this kind of thing for a living. So it appears that the pollen really was in this Precambrian rock."
 
So instead of jumping to conclusions, you need to ask me what I specifically mean. What I specifically mean is it's a proven case that the pollen was in that rock. That doesn't mean I am of the dogmatic position that it is 100% an absolute proven certainty that this means it isn't contamination, because historical hypotheses don't offer such strong conclusions. How can I ultimately know how and when it got there? I can't, not from circumstantial forensics way after it happened!

 

So when I read this....
 

[They have also found pollen in the pre-Cambrian at Roraima, and unbreakable case where contamination wasn't an option, it remained a mystery to evolutionists, they never found an answer for it,

 

...I'm supposed to interpret that as you actually agreeing that the evolutionary explanation is a plausible one ? You said right there that contamination wasn't an option, now you are pretending you never meant that.
 

[color=#282828]Also it's the genetic fallacy to refer to what something said a long time ago, as though it still has relevance now. If you are quoting me from a time I pretty much would have referred to myself as YEC, how then can that have any baring on the conversation? But that doesn't mean those old comments mean I am dogmatic.

 

It was less than three months ago for the above quote.



#20 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 31 July 2017 - 03:02 PM

 

Wibble: I'm not sure why this "living fossil" is seen as some sort of strike against evolution by you. The most recent fossil is about 2 million years old (found in Tasmania). Why would you expect a relic population to provide fossils for us to find in the meantime ?

 
[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]You're right, between then and now pines are silent. It seems very consistent with a flood, whereas a history of evolution might show pines existing between 300 mya and 2 mya. But with a flood we obviously don't see the rocks as a history of earth, so we wouldn't expect pines throughout the record.

 

How does your flood separate angiosperms (flowering plants) from gymnosperms (conifers etc.) into different parts of the geological record until you reach Cretaceous rock ?

You didn't wish to admit to your error of 300 myo Wollemi pines then ? In actual fact putative Wollemi fossils are found in the Cretaceous, about 125 mya.

Why do you insist there should be a much more complete record ? Why should it be so likely that 1) a specific fossil is formed and 2) if one does form, it gets found ?

About a tenth of a tenth of a percent of modern organisms have a representative that has been found in the fossil record. Fossilisation is a rare event for any particular species !

 

See the problem? If I do show you one out-of-place, you just re-label it as "ancient" and push back evolution to an earlier date, if you can't get away with arguing contamination.

It is blindingly obvious that there are a multitude of things that if found in completely the wrong strata, would destroy evolution. But they are never found.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users