Questions Creationists Never Answer-still waiting!

TC: I know you are hermetically sealed and impervious to any natural explanation for abiogenesis, however, I thought you might find the following articles interesting anyway. They represent some of the current research and evidence for life from non-life. Enjoy your reading! NASA’s origins of life site
RNA and the origins of life
University of Glasgow’s origins of life site
The emergence of living systems in Archaean submarine hot springs

​

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-31-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
When I say that these are "questions Creationists never answer", I am actually including all of those sites and books written by Creationists, not just the people I have spoken to directly. I would sggest that I have done a great deal more study of both science and Creationism than you have, which was made abundantly clear to you, I think, when you came here as a YEC some months ago.

---

I'm not just talking about reading books, discussing, etc. I mean, do your own real research. You seem to accuse me of not writing my own flood model. Why don't you try work some things out for yourself if they are giving you that much trouble. And no, it wasn't made abundantly clear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Of course it's a fair question if Creationists are going to use the term, which they have for years, to state something factual about nature. The fact that they don't have a clear definition even now means that they have, for many years, simply asserted that "kinds" exist, having nothing but "because the Bible says so" to support the assertion.

---

Yes creationist are throwing the word around to much. But the problem is there is no need to accuse the Bible for mens understanding, or lack of. You have the kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species used to decide upon classifying life. Which I'm sure you know. Most evolutionist make the rash decision that kind means species even though it is last upon deciding what a form of life is to be grouped into. No man was around at the time God did all this creating, so this must be the closest thing to the word of God you can get. What does God mean by kind? Who's to say what He classifies as a kind is the same as us? I'd be surprised if it even became known within my life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
As far as my research has shown me, according to Baraminology, chimpanzees and humans are never considered the same "kind", and in fact are not considered to be related at all, despite sharing 99% of the exact same genes. There is never any other reason given for this assertion other than something from the Bible. However, all cats, are all the same "kind", and therefore considered very closely-related. This means that my fluffy little house cats are considered to be very closely-related to a Bengal tiger, but a Chimp and a human are not related in the least, even though genetic evidence puts humans and chimps much closer and domestic cats and tigers farther apart.

---

Wow, talk about giving of misinformation. 99%? Did you make that up? The correct number is 97%, even then by simply doing it a different way (mean or mode, take your pick?, you can just as easily get 96.4%. And if you stop comparing the similarities and look at the differences. How could anyone think they are related? The amount of genes that a human and a chimpanzee have is quite incredible. 3% = 3.6% is a lot of genes. Compare the chromosomes between the two and there not even in the ball park. Lets not resort to making up stuff now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
So, I still don't know how to tell one "kind" from another.

---

Neither do I. Just like I don't know of this evidence for evolution is except what is done purely on a philosophical nature.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Non-responsive hand-waving.

---

Whatever you say oh wise one. What am I to do if I don't know much about that subject? Get accused?

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Are you saying that ONLY flowering plants float, and not non-flowering plants??

---

No, I said leaves and flowers float. Wasn't that made pretty clear?

quote:

---

Great. Your whole scenario is based upon an assumtion that you are correctly interpreting a ancient holy book of which no original copies exist. I could say that "fountains of the deep" mean waters, not volcanoes. Show me how my interpretation is wrong.

---

Who's to say you are wrong? We must be both right. Since it did say all. Lava and water it was.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
What are the predictions that your flood "model" (since you don't have a scientific theory of the Flood) makes about how we should find nature, if all happend as you interpret the bible to mean. What you have done is simply hand wave and say "all kinds of stuff could have happened". This is not an explanation.

---

I was just showing to you that this ancient book that you are so quick to accuse doesn't make any actual assertions as to what exactly happened so don't be so quick to say it contradicts any given evidence. What's this, my flood model? Give me a break. I'm trying to get through school so I can go onto univerity and who knows what the future may hold. Perhaps I might right a possible flood model. For now I'm just getting my education so I can be in a position to decide what to believe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
You seem to display a lot of attitude for such a poor debater.

---

Says who? You? I could easily say the same about you since I can now see you like making things up. Better at science? Do you even know me? Perhaps at evolution since I just don't have the time. But science is a very broad subject. Same with you saying you know more about creation. Whatever you want to believe. No one is stopping you.

​

[This message has been edited by RetroCrono, 01-31-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"There is no potential reason why abiogenesis, big bang etc. are not natural, so please give reasons, given so much is unknown about abiogenesis & the big bang, why it is a reasonable inference to invoke the supernatural, above the highly observed natural mechanistic "framework"? What logic allows this?"
--Number one being because abiogenesis is simply eroneous in my logic, because there simply is no mechenism known to man that can bring about anything that would produce life that reproduces itself and carry's on natural processes to stablize it for further development. The Big Bang being eroneous to me, not as much as abiogenesis but in my opinion, i falt in logic when taken as an accepted theory. We are eons from contemplating a mechenism for both these concepts, second, I simply invoke the supernatural God as my accurrate book tells me, created the heavens and the earth, this is my creationist faith. Its not that I am fighting toward abiogenesis or the Big Bang being natural or not, its that you have to have alot more faith than I do to believe in either one in fully natural processes.

​

---

That abiogenesis is erronious to your logic is neither here nor there. You have abandoned the mechanistic framework for every known process in favour of a process that has never been seen.Abiogenesis is mathematically POSSIBLE, by chance alone, not that thats how I think DNA occurred, without earlier molecules, but it is POSSIBLE. But, away you go, "it must be the supernatural". There is no reason to believe it was the supernatural when it is POSSIBLE under natural mechanistics.Faulty logic.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-31-2002]

Retrocrono: Let me get this straight. From your own statements:1. You are in secondary school. Correct?
2. You know little about biology or evolution, principally because you don't have the time. Correct?
3. You (apparently) do not know enough about geology, plate tectonics, physics, etc, to construct a flood model of your own. Correct?If the answers to the above questions are "yes", I'm curious as to how you feel you are able to dismiss 200 years worth of scientific study in geology and 150 years worth of scientific study in biology. You're quite free to believe as you wish, of course, but your rather forceful assertions that the people who have spent lifetimes studying these issues are totally wrong is interesting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I don't quite know how to make this any simpler. Maybe this: When the C14 is gone, you need to use a different method. Like K-Ar."
--Your still missing or ignoring the point. You still have measurable C14 and the measurable quantity of radioisotopes, thus giving your date, contredicts K-Ar.

---

This is getting tedious, TC. I have told you that the likely explanation is contamination.

quote:

---

"So there is no C14 in the air? Skin? Smoke? Plastic? As the dates get older and older these tiny quantities become exceedingly important."
--This is not how you get C14 in your organism, C14 can only be present when it is contracted from the organism eating plant life, or eating something that ate plant life, when its dead, neither is it eating, or is it breathing.

---

(Sigh) TC, I won't bother answering this since someone has already done in a post above. Don't you ever think that possibly you don't understand the whole process of radiometric dating?

quote:

---

"I asked for an example not a sample. I was talking about a specific analysis that you know of where you have a problem with the date."
--I have a problem with all 15,000 of those dates, why would they give such dates to multi million year old stratum and its consealents.

---

Good, then you can give us some specific examples and give us details of the history of each one.

quote:

---

"Exaclty. That is why we do not use radiocarbon dates for dinosaur bones."
--Then why are we finding any C14 existing in them at all?

---

If you don't know by now, you never will.

quote:

---

"If we did we would have a bunch of "infinite" dates."
--Which is my point, your not getting your infinite dates.

---

Why would anyone report "infinite dates?" Actually, the dates are not infinite they are simply undefined. The calculation stops when the divisor goes to zero.

quote:

---

"I'm sure its been done, perhaps by mistake, but never reported."
--Not just dinosaur bones, but I just gave you 15,000 and their results, not their direct results but their porportional summary.

---

There is nothing to address in those dates. Give us details.

quote:

---

"Then we go to a different method. There are numerous techniques. It seems that you think radiocarbon is the only one."
--I am aware of many, C14 just being the most knowledgable, I believe 7 or so, they don't seem to be consistant with C14 do they?

---

Of course not. Most of them measure materials of much greater age. I wouldn't expect themto be consitent with radiocarbon.

quote:

---

"It would be the opposite problem of creationists measuring the age of historic volcanic eruptions using K-Ar techniques. It just doesn't make sense. I know you don't understand this so why don't you look up some references on radiometric dating?"
--You can't measure lava flows with K-Ar with my knowledge on the subject, I know you know why. I know enough about radiometric dating to make this argument feasable.

---

Why not?

quote:

---

"First, not many people make this mistake. Second the results are not reported because they make no sense and the researcher is emabarrased at using an inappropriate method."
--So then why do you continually say that the dating methods are consistant when they do not give consistant dates.

---

I will type very slowly here. Some things are old and are dated by other methods. Some things are younger and are dated by radiocarbon methods. I wouldn't expect them to give the same dates.

quote:

---

"But we don't, unless there has been contamination."
--Relying on the arument of contamination is greatly flawed, and no, not all 15,000 of those dates are flawed by contamination."Okay, the lighter C12 favors the more mobile components such as coal gas and escapes. But then why am I explaining something that you have not verified actually happens?"
--I think I know what your trying to say, but I think something I am not understanding from your grammer usage. "coal gas"?

---

Sorry, miner's usage. Try "coal bed methane." Does that sound familiar? If not you are less informed than I thought.

quote:

---

"Once again, you make an unsupported assertion. Please give us specifics on such samples."
--I just gave you an sample, or should I say example, 15,000 of them, with only 3 infinite dates, ie, unmeasurable).

---

I said "specifics."

quote:

---

"Most likely it is contamination."
--Really, if you don't assume it was contamination, then your whole theory as a whole, or your various 'dating' methods are stuck in a rut.

---

But I DO assume it was contamination.

quote:

---

"Sorry, done before I saw this. I have however, posted elsewhere a response to your assertions about pollen in the Hakatai Shale. Before you answer anything else, do you understand that there are numerous radiometric methods to obtain dates on rocks?"
--Yes I am well aware that there are many, as I have addressed through the forums numerous times before, I am showing you why C14 is either inconsistant with all the other dating methods, or they all are contredicting.

---

And we have been (repeatedly) showing you why the dates SHOULD contradict. I get the feeling your are ignoring us.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 01-31-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wj:
Well, I'm not a geologist but I can suggest two mechanisms for your first problem. Groundwater seeping with dissolved carbon dioxide as carbolic acid can seep through significant depths of soil and porous rock. Secondly contamination by handling (sweat, skin flakes, synthetic chemicals, diffusion of comtemporary air through porous material. Remember, we are not talking about fully fossilised materials when applying carbon dating.

---

Correct. Contamination may occur naturally,in the ground, or during sampling and preparation. The older a sample is the more likely that natural contamination has occurred. I submit that this is one reason that fewer dates on the old end of the radiocarbon range are reported (although this is still an unsubstantiated claim by TC). I would also guess that many are tossed. Why continue the analysis if no C14 is detected? One might ask: why attempt the dates in the first place if there is possible contamination? From my own personal experience this is done in the hope that a valid date will emerge to support a hypothesis, however, no geologist I know really needs a date to promote a hypothesis.Contamination during sampling and preparation is relatively easy and is more likely to occur in the hands of creationists. I have heard some stories about creationists showing specimens to their friends and displaying them on bookshelves before sending them off for analysis. This would not be standard protocol. Especially for radiocarbon analysis. One shouldn't even breathe on these samples. The combined effect of very low C14 concentrations (especially in older samples, as pointed out very capably above) and the super-sensitivity of the equipment make contamination a critical issue in this method.

"Precisely...and thats documented evidence...you dont need to look for a soul to understand feelings...its all a chemical reaction in the brain. Same as memories. And thats not my opinion...thats documented science."
--Great then we have no contrediction, This is what is the soul, as is depicted in the bible, I believe the soul isn't what is spiritual, its your spirit, the secretion of chemical serotonin in the brain, would trigger this emotion, thus your personality varies on this, thus your heart.------------------

"Abiogenesis is mathematically POSSIBLE, by chance alone, not that thats how I think DNA occurred, without earlier molecules, but it is POSSIBLE. But, away you go, "it must be the supernatural". There is no reason to believe it was the supernatural when it is POSSIBLE under natural mechanistics."
--I never said it wasn't possible, I said it was eroneous. Of course anyone would be to believe that is 'possible', its just how far your going to drift into imagination, dreams, and fantasy. I might come to a possible acceptance if you had eternity to work with, but you just don't have that with abiogenesis, you have a couple billion years. Abiogenesis is possible, and as I said before I think we will be able to make life in the laboratory some day, the problem is, I would speculate, that your going to find just how amazingly complex the mechenism will be to produce this, also, this life must be able to reproduce itself in order to continue development, this I find eroneous to the highest degree. And no I didn't say 'it must be the supernatural'. I said that my belief states that it was the supernatural, and I accept that.--NASA's Origins of life - "Not knowing what conditions are needed for the emergence of life, it is only possible to speculate about its existence elsewhere in the universe..."------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-31-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Abiogenesis is mathematically POSSIBLE, by chance alone, not that thats how I think DNA occurred, without earlier molecules, but it is POSSIBLE. But, away you go, "it must be the supernatural". There is no reason to believe it was the supernatural when it is POSSIBLE under natural mechanistics."
--I never said it wasn't possible, I said it was eroneous. Of course anyone would be to believe that is 'possible', its just how far your going to drift into imagination, dreams, and fantasy. I might come to a possible acceptance if you had eternity to work with, but you just don't have that with abiogenesis, you have a couple billion years. Abiogenesis is possible, and as I said before I think we will be able to make life in the laboratory some day, the problem is, I would speculate, that your going to find just how amazingly complex the mechenism will be to produce this, also, this life must be able to reproduce itself in order to continue development, this I find eroneous to the highest degree. And no I didn't say 'it must be the supernatural'. I said that my belief states that it was the supernatural, and I accept that.

​

--NASA's Origins of life - "Not knowing what conditions are needed for the emergence of life, it is only possible to speculate about its existence elsewhere in the universe..."

​

---

I think you're misusing the word "erroneous".Abiogenesis is POSSIBLE. How is that erroneous?So, you're ditching the POSSIBLE, for something never observed (the supernatural), with the implication that God exists, & is able to do IMPOSSIBLE things. That is to say, the observed laws of physics & chemistry allow abiogenesis, but the supernatural will have to change those laws, hence the impossible. How likely is this compared to abiogenesis?Why jump ship from the natural to the supernatural?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Why jump ship from the natural to the supernatural?

---

Um bud, that assumes he was ever on board HMS natural in the first place.....

You know what I mean!! You know what I mean!! You know what I mean!! ------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

why the hell did that get posted 3 times?

LOL....wow,you just dont admit it when you are wrong do you? when they say the heart,they actually mean the brain? Boy,you really have a knack for the twist my friend. You are of course very much wrong about this because the soul according to your Bible IS a spiritual thing,not a corporeal or chemical one. And i was watching a show about the history of biology last months...did you know that until about 400 years ago,everyone was convinced that the brain was actually a secondary organ designed to purify the blood. Initially,they had come to that conclusion because of the spongious appearance of the brain and because of peculiar situations where decapitated bodies,like those of chicken for instance,kept moving for a while after decapitation. They did not believe that the loss of the brain caused the death. They were all convinced that death in decapitations was strictly due to the massive emoraging that innevitably followed. So in the days of Jesus and before,no one associated any cognitive functions to the brain. They all believe that the heart was the sole center of life inside any living organism. This is mainly the reason why most of them believed that neither plants nor insects were living organism per say because they had no identifiable heart. So as you can clearly see,the people who wrote the Bible thoughts that the physical heart was the seat of the soul and the blood vehiculed the emotions in the body. The Bible is a treatese of primitive superstitions and is no more inspired by God then a children's book containing stories of Santa Clauss and the Easter Bunny.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"There is no potential reason why abiogenesis, big bang etc. are not natural, so please give reasons, given so much is unknown about abiogenesis & the big bang, why it is a reasonable inference to invoke the supernatural, above the highly observed natural mechanistic "framework"? What logic allows this?"
--Number one being because abiogenesis is simply eroneous in my logic, because there simply is no mechenism known to man that can bring about anything that would produce life that reproduces itself and carry's on natural processes to stablize it for further development.[/QUOTE]

​

This is an Argument from Ignorance. Just because you don't know of something at this time, doesn't mean we will never know.

​

Also, just because humans can't figure something out does not then mean that "Godidit". It could be that we lack the brain power to understand how it happened.

​

This is, again, the God of the Gaps argument.

​

quote:

---

The Big Bang being eroneous to me, not as much as abiogenesis but in my opinion, i falt in logic when taken as an accepted theory.

---

​

Why don't you explain, here, what you think is flawed, SPECIFICALLY, about the Big Bang Theory or the Abiogenesis Theory.

​

I am willing to bet a shiny new nickel that you don't have much of a grasp on what the theories claim, nor the evidence supporting them.

​

quote:

---

We are eons from contemplating a mechenism for both these concepts,

---

​

So why claim that you know anything at all? Why not say "I don't know?"

​

Also, what happens to your faith if/when we do figure it out??

​

[QUOTE]second, I simply invoke the supernatural God as my accurrate book tells me, created the heavens and the earth, this is my creationist faith. Its not that I am fighting toward abiogenesis or the Big Bang being natural or not, its that you have to have alot more faith than I do to believe in either one in fully natural processes.
[/b]

---

I could see how someone who doesn't know anything about the Big Bang Theory or the Abiogenesis theory would think that.It is much easier to decide that the Bible is right ahead of time than to do any study of science.

quote:

---

--If this is your argument, then it isn't to be argued against either way, I would be to point this out, and to believe in a natural process that is unconceivable requires a little more faith than I have.

---

No.The point is, in science, we do not "believe" in things that do not have evidence to support them. We say "I don't know".

quote:

---

The thing is about abiogenesis atleast is that thousands have attempted to bring about life in a test tube, per se,

---

Yes, but so? We cannot reproduce the exact conditions of the planet when life first came about.This might be something that we never know the anwer to, but not knowing does not = Godidit.

quote:

---

I do believe that if the rapture doesn't happen before then, we will make life, but my speculation is that it will be eroneously complex and still inconceivable towards natural processes.

---

So, you will not accept the evidence for Abiogenesis, even if it is acheived? Sounds like a creationist. [QUOTE]"As for your "accurate" book,thats a matter of opinion and i'm afraid that despite pretense to the contrary,yours is very much clouded on the subject."
--All attempts to discredit it have simply failed, even in your own various arguments requiring interperetation of the bible, as it is obvious, discussion on this subject is no problem if you desire it, i do not see it as an opinion because it isn't an opinionated assertion, it is factually based with my current knowledge, and if anyone would like to inform me otherwize, you can attempt.
[/B][/QUOTE]They haven't failed. You are just very slippery and interpret and reinterpret the Bible at whim to never be wrong.Do you believe that the Bible has no contradictions? If so, have a look at my post on the crucifiction in the "Is the Bible the Word of God?" thread.