Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
65 online now:
jar, Kleinman, ringo, Tangle (4 members, 61 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 878,053 Year: 9,801/23,288 Month: 816/1,544 Week: 208/322 Day: 62/66 Hour: 7/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16347
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1381 of 1385 (869423)
12-30-2019 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1380 by Faith
12-30-2019 10:41 AM


Re: The unwitnessed (prehistoric) past
quote:
Yes, sorry I don't get everything said that needs to be said in one post, and I forget things I've said years ago. Whatever. The thing about the geological phenomena is that most of it is one time events that occurred in the Prehistoric past...

But it is not really about one-time events. Lakes and rivers and seas, earthquakes, continental drift, volcanic eruptions. These are things that exist today.

quote:
But I also don't want to rest any of this specifically on witnesses either because there are sciences that rely on indirect information, whichis what I was referring to about atomic phenomena and the mostion of the Earth and so on. There is no direct witnessing but there are measuruable AND REPEATABLE effects that can be used to study them

And indeed the events are repeatable - in a general rather than exact sense - but that is good enough. Astronomy has it worse, yet that is still accepted as science.

quote:
It's not that we can't know SOME things about that past, such as that fossils were once living creatures -- but that was not known to those who originally studied them as they came up with all sorts of outlandish ideas about them because they didn't have anything to compare them too. That's the ONE-TIME-EVENT phenomenon. Even that can be resolved as it was in the case of the fossils by a more reasonable interpretation.

And that is why the Flood was rejected by geology. All the supposed evidence for it had more reasonable interpretations.

quote:
t as for explaining the causes of the strata and the fossils, that's where we are getting into territory I'm arguing isn't so easily knowable, because of course I'm objecting to the standard interprreation of it which I consider to be … let's say irrational?

Which only means that you want it to be wrong because it contradicts your beliefs. If you want to see real irrationality, your own arguments are full of it.

quote:
Time periods attached to slabs of rock by dating methods that don't even date the rocks themselves.

And yet the methods are quite sound. Even if the rocks are not dated directly the relationships between them (remember the law of superposition?) provide adequate evidence to work out ages from the rocks that are directly dated.

quote:
Slabs of rock that couldn't ever possibly form from a landscape in a time period anyway.

So you say, but you’ve never come up with any real problems.

quote:
Fossils that form under rare conditions occurring in amazing abundance in these rocks, and sorted BY the rocks too.

Of course the conditions are more common in sone environments than others - and unsurprisingly fossils are more frequently found in rocks formed where favourable conditions would have been more common. And the order is easily explained under the conventional view. It’s your Flood geology that can’t explain it.

quote:
That's supposedly evidence of the time periods interpretation but once you see that a rock can't represent a time period the whole idea comes crashing down. And so on.

But Faith you don’t “see” any such thing. You just make up crazy nonsense. And you can’t call that anything but irrational.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1380 by Faith, posted 12-30-2019 10:41 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 1382 of 1385 (869424)
12-30-2019 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1380 by Faith
12-30-2019 10:41 AM


Re: The unwitnessed (prehistoric) past
Perhaps on a general evolution thread rather than the flood thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1380 by Faith, posted 12-30-2019 10:41 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1383 by Faith, posted 12-30-2019 11:20 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1383 of 1385 (869429)
12-30-2019 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1382 by Sarah Bellum
12-30-2019 11:08 AM


Re: The unwitnessed (prehistoric) past
Right now I've only been touching on Flood related concepts so I think I'll take my last post over to the thread "Did the Flood Really Happen" for now anyway. If more general evolution ideas come up we can move them again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1382 by Sarah Bellum, posted 12-30-2019 11:08 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1384 by Sarah Bellum, posted 12-30-2019 11:31 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 1384 of 1385 (869434)
12-30-2019 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1383 by Faith
12-30-2019 11:20 AM


Re: The unwitnessed (prehistoric) past
Sounds good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1383 by Faith, posted 12-30-2019 11:20 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
TheMatrix/DNA
Member (Idle past 64 days)
Posts: 47
From: Newark-NJ-USA
Joined: 06-05-2015


Message 1385 of 1385 (871207)
01-30-2020 3:56 AM


RE: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

No, because Science has not designed the right model of UCA, yet. Are there any scientific practical use for your parents as the common ancestor species of you and yours brothers? You had the shape of an unique initial cell as also the shape of the initial cell after abiogenesis; you had the shape of fetus as the shape of reptilians: the shape of embryo as the shape of mammals. But, your parents as your UCA never existed inside yours little ovule universe during yours embryogenesis. So why the UCA of the first cell should be at Earth during abiogenesis?

So, the design of the model for UCA is not for Biology or Physics, it is for Astronomy, the space beyond this little egg-Earth, like your mother´s body was the space beyond your little egg. And why Astronomy did´n it yet? It happens that Academic Astronomy did not get the right theoretical model of astronomic systems, the formation of astros, etc, because the academy is under magical thinking: magic accidents which, instead destroying things, build on new complex things. Like any other non-existent magical gods.

Comparative anatomy between the last most evolved astronomic system from Cosmological Evolution and the first cell-biological system from Biological Evolution must be the unique rational and right method for finding the right model of UCA. I did it, I got a model, I don´t know if it is right, need more testing. But, if it is right, will be very, very useful not only for practical science and new technologies, meaning more useful for eliminating magical thinking from human mind.

It is weird thinking to make comparisons between living and non-living systems. I thought that also, till find that there is no such division between living and non-living when talking about natural systems: all properties of cells are there, working, at the right model of astronomic systems. And there where no "origins of life", neither here neither other place, there are no "origins", every natural system is under transformation from pre-existing systems, and evolution. The words "origins" and "life" are big prejudices to rationality because they lead us towards magical thinking with all the prejudices to humankind. Ok, mine is merely another theory, so...


There was no origins of life and universe, astronomical systems are half-alive, light waves contains the code for life and DNA is not a code: Matrix/DNA Theory

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020