the source of life

Hey homunculus, Right, so what happens when we look back to 3,600,000,000 years ago?4,000,000,000 years ago?4,400,000,000 years ago? Ah yes, the misunderstanding of Louis Pasteur and his fellow scientists. Spontaneous Generation of decay causing bacteria and fly larva disproved by experiments that curiously don't replicate primordial conditions and only last a couple of days.Actually all those many experiments proved and confirmed was that decay was not spontaneous. When dead matter was put in sterile conditions it did not decay. This also led to the discovery that bacteria cause what is called decay by breaking down the proteins in the dead matter. And this is why the earth orbits the sun¹ .... Wonderful.Enjoy

---

¹ - sun: a rather small and insignificant star in one of the outer arms of a galaxy that is just like many other galaxies, a real stand-out.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hello homunculus, welcome to the fray. Do you understand that there is no evidence of life at those times? And if we go back to 4,600,000,000 years ago we have trouble finding evidence for an earth. Based on this evidence, sometime between 3,600,000,000 years ago and 3,500,000,000 years ago life began on earth, because we find evidence of it 3,500,000,000 years ago. Cute. Millions of scientists know squat, while you know the truth? Unfortunately for you, your opinion has no effect on reality. This is the law of reality. You can chose to let reality affect your opinion, or you can chose to deny reality.You are of course free to believe anything you want, but you cannot "believe away" evidence. I am glad to see you say "with the right to change my mind" as I have a challenge for you:see Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)I note that not one creationist has been able to explain even one of the correlations, and this topic has been around for a while, since 03*21*2004. This is currently at version 1 number 3 (threads are generally limited to 300 replies), with 297+306+272 = 875 replies without one single refutation on one single correlation.If you want, we can take it in stages, however I note that there is overwhelming, objective, physical evidence of the reality that the age of the earth is more than 6000 years. This evidence correlates and validates the different methods used and confirms each other. Confirmation Bias and Cognitive dissonance are not the tools of an open-mind or an honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion. Curiously, no scientific theory is ever proven, and using the word "prove" shows a lack of understanding of the scientific process.Science approximates reality with theories, and theories are the way we understand reality, they are based on observed facts of objective reality, and they are tested by observed facts of objective reality.The better the theory approximates reality the better it will be able to predict new aspects of reality that were unknown before, but there is no way to know all about reality. Thus all theories are tentative, they can be falsified and invalidated by evidence that shows they do not reflect reality, but they can never be proven to cover all of reality.The reality is that the earth is old.The best approximation we currently have is that the earth is 4.55 billion years old.The reality is that life on earth is old.The best approximation we currently have is that life is 3.5 billion years old. So you concur that the experiments of Pasteur et al did not invalidate the concept of abiogenesis.Reference.com - What's Your Question?
Abiogenesis - WikipediaNor does abiogenesis propose "self-creation" as the answer. There has been a lot of study in the field of abiogenesis, and there are a number of people around here that would be happy to discuss this on a new thread.This brings up a critical issue: terminology. If you are going to discuss science you need to use the terminology used in science to mean the things science uses them to mean.In science "spontaneous generation" means the experiments of Pasteur concerning the decay of organic matter and the growth of maggots, etc.In science "spontaneous generation" does not mean abiogenesis, and using it to mean abiogenesis confuses the issues rather than clarifies them, and it betrays a limited understanding of the science. We got off on a tangent because you used the wrong terminology. If you want to discuss this further see

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hey homunculus, just a small point on this post: Only choosing evidence that is suggestive of a preferred view is call Confirmation Bias. Thinking that information that contradicts your preferred views is false or irrelevant is called Cognitive Dissonance.It is amusingly easy to find "evidence" of a young earth in one that is very old, as all one needs to do is concentrate on things that are less than the age you want the earth to be. The problem is that you can do this for any age under the actual (factual, TRUE) age of the earth.For instance one can go to Hawaii and measure the age of fresh lava, and then use that to argue that the earth is 1 day old.In reality all you have determined is a bottom limit for the age of the earth with any such test: the actual (factual, TRUE) age of the earth is logically older than all measurements of age of the earth, because those are measurements of parts of the earth that may or may not be the oldest.It is conversely interestingly difficult to find evidence of an old earth in one that is young.For instance it is extremely difficult to find evidence of an earth older than 6 billion years, as this is before the mass that became the earth solidified.This is, after all, how we know that the age of life on earth is between 3.5 and 4.5 billion years old: we have evidence of life at 3.5 billion years ago, we do not have evidence of life at 4.5 billion years ago. The logical conclusion is that life began on this planet some time in between. Science does not include contradicted concepts in what is known and understood about the reality of the universe, the earth, life, and objective reality. If you ignore contradictions then you are not practicing science no matter how you "feel" about it. Confirmation Bias and Cognitive Dissonance are not the tools of an open-mind or honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion.If you are truly interested in the origin of life, then there is a lot to learn, a lot of things to investigate, a lot of concepts to test, but to truly search for the answer you need to use an open-minded skeptical approach.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : sausages

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

hello homunculus, Which of course would be a lot of fun. We already have some topics on this: Problems with Radiometric Dating?
Validity of Radiometric Dating
Correlation Among Various Radiometric AgesPost away, but be sure to include your evidence and your sources. I repeat: do you think millions of scientists know squat, while you know the truth?Or do you just admit that you reject their knowledge in favor of your pet belief without any concern for it being true\valid\reality? The appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy: a concept is true or false, independent of how many people think it is true.Curiously there is lots of evidence that the world is too old for any young earth scenario. See Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III). I'll be happy to walk you through it a step at a time. ate
Petty ad hominems are childish and don't further rational deb.Now you are implying that millions of scientists are involved in an evil conspiracy, while only you have clear vision.Please substantiate this claim at the Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes thread - so far all the evidence is for creationist frauds and hoaxes. Strangely science is not dependent on people agreeing with it, it is dependent on the evidence agreeing with it. Creationists agreeing among themselves that it doesn't work is just an example of confirmation bias, not of open-minded skepticism or the rational evaluation of evidence. Correct, and this is why science is based on agreement with evidence rather than on opinion. Opinion as a source of truth was discarded centuries ago, except perhaps by creationists? Strangely denial does not make the evidence go away, nor does it invalidate the science. You could try a christian resource:Radiometric Dating And the probability is very high that it has already been posted and refuted on the above threads. Wrong. I know it is older than 6000 years. Precisely how old (4.5 billion to 4.6 billion) is irrelevant to the fact that parts of this earth are over 6000 years old, and thus the earth as a whole must be older. This guy is a fraud, a con, a huckster, a liar. Talk about omissions.He has a bachelor degree in chemistry. Not biology, not physics, not geology, yet he thinks wearing a lab coat makes him an authority.He was also an auto mechanic for 10 years. The rest of his resume is selling lies to gullible wanna-believers. You keep saying this, as if repetition will enhance your position. Curiously the only thing that will enhance your position is demonstrating the problems on any one of the already available thread.I'll tackle more tonight, as the topic is the source of life (something a chemist might have input on), not on reliability of age measurements and who is your favorite liar.You still have a lot of baloney on your posts.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •