Man was in Pangaea

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, dad2 said:

We all understand that there are more than one theory dealing with the aspects of genesis creation and origins.

There are religious beliefs about creation and origins.    

6 hours ago, dad2 said:

The theory of evolution deals with where man came from

No.  Evolutionary theory is about the way living populations change over time.   

6 hours ago, dad2 said:

although not all the way down to the imaginary first lifeform.

Actually, genetics does that.    That's how we know that all living things on Earth have a common ancestor.   Genetics, not evolutionary theory.  Part of this is that you just go with your assumptions, and scientists must go with the evidence.    Why not just admit the fact?  

6 hours ago, dad2 said:

Actually science assumes and believes when it comes to all issues involving origins.

That's wrong.    Science merely goes with the evidence.   And as your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise says, the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

 

Edited June 1, 2024 by The Barbarian

[dad2]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

There are religious beliefs about creation and origins.    

No.  Evolutionary theory is about the way living populations change over time.   

Actually, genetics does that.    That's how we know that all living things on Earth have a common ancestor.   Genetics, not evolutionary theory.  Part of this is that you just go with your assumptions, and scientists must go with the evidence.    Why not just admit the fact?  

That's wrong.    Science merely goes with the evidence.   And as your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise says, the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

 

Evidence for the first lifeform? Evidence that nature on earth was the same in Noah's time? No. None. What they do is molest evidence with belief based convictions. Two can play at that game.

 As for the theory of evolution, the standard model in cosmology, the big bang, stellar evolution,  abiogenesis and deep time modelling, they all deal with things Genesis talks about. That also all diametrically oppose Genesis. You cannot have seriously thought that was coincidence.

[The Barbarian]

8 hours ago, dad2 said:

Evidence for the first lifeform?

Yep.   A load of that kind of thing.   Not part of evolutionary theory, of course, but there's lots of evidence for the way the first living things on Earth worked.   Would you like to learn about that?

8 hours ago, dad2 said:

As for the theory of evolution, the standard model in cosmology, the big bang, stellar evolution,  abiogenesis and deep time modelling, they all deal with things Genesis talks about. 

That also all diametrically oppose Genesis.

You were completely taken in on that stuff.   None of it is part of evolutionary theory.   Of course, all those sciences are about things mentioned in Genesis.   As you learned, the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory, which assumes life began somehow, and just describes how it changes over time.

None of it opposes Genesis, of course.   It opposes your revision of Genesis, but that's quite a different thing.

Edited June 2, 2024 by The Barbarian

[dad2]

Quote

Yep.   A load of that kind of thing

A load is a great word for supposed evidence for the first lifeform.

Quote

 Not part of evolutionary theory, of course, but there's lots of evidence for the way the first living things on Earth worked. 

Not the tiniest shred of evidence actually. Offer some and find out.

Quote

None of it opposes Genesis, of course.   It opposes your revision of Genesis, but that's quite a different thing.

In other words if you totally disbelieve and mutilate Genesis you can pretend that you still believe some of it. We get it. The thing is you cannot do that with actual bible believers. That tells us who your target audience is here. The weak. The uninformed. The confused. Those who have not yet come to a knowledge of the lord and belief. (or those who rejected it)

[The Barbarian]

 

 

Posted Sunday at 08:33 AM (edited)

On 6/1/2024 at 11:44 PM, dad2 said:

Evidence for the first lifeform?

Yep.   A load of that kind of thing.   Not part of evolutionary theory, of course, but there's lots of evidence for the way the first living things on Earth worked.   Would you like to learn about that?

On 6/2/2024 at 12:10 PM, dad2 said:

A load is a great word for supposed evidence for the first lifeform.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/

Abiotic aminos acids and short proteins:
https://www.pbs.org/exploringspace/meteorites/murchison/

Stuff like that.  

None of it opposes Genesis, of course.   It opposes your revision of Genesis, but that's quite a different thing.   You can totally disbelieve and mutilate Genesis and pretend that you still believe it.   The thing is you cannot do that with actual bible believers.

 

 

Edited June 8, 2024 by The Barbarian

[dad2]

Quote

Yep.   A load of that kind of thing.   Not part of evolutionary theory, of course, but there's lots of evidence for the way the first living things on Earth worked.   Would you like to learn about that?

Yes, in your own words, using link as support, or quoting a bit from link.

 

From your link "In conclusion, it seems probably that we will never know the precise historic path by which life on the Earth emerged, but, very much in the Darwinian tradition, it seems we can now specify the essence of the ahistoric principles by which that process came about. Just as Darwin, in the very simplest of terms, pointed out how natural selection enabled simple life to evolve into complex life, so the recently proposed general theory of evolution [1,7] points out in simplest terms how simple, but fragile, replicating systems could have complexified into the intricate chemical systems of life. But, as discussed earlier, a detailed understanding of that process will have to wait until ongoing studies in systems chemistry reveal both the classes of chemical materials and the kinds of chemical pathways that simple replicating systems are able to follow in their drive towards greater complexity and replicative stability."

 

So total ignoramuses then. OK. Total speculation and belief. Thanks for that

 

Quote

None of it opposes Genesis, of course.   It opposes your revision of Genesis, but that's quite a different thing.   You can totally disbelieve and mutilate Genesis and pretend that you still believe it.   The thing is you cannot do that with actual bible believers.

All of it opposes a creation by God.

[The Barbarian]

Yep.   A load of that kind of thing.   Not part of evolutionary theory, of course, but there's lots of evidence for the way the first living things on Earth worked.   Would you like to learn about that?

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

Yes, in your own words, using link as support, or quoting a bit from link.

O.K.   For a long time, the block has been amino acids.    Without abiotic AAs, abiogenesis is notfeasible.    For a long time, we know that amino acids and short protein sequences (peptides) have been known to form in space ref. Murchison meteorite.

However...

Ménez, B., Pisapia, C., Andreani, M. et al. Abiotic synthesis of amino acids in the recesses of the oceanic lithosphere. Nature 564, 59–63 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0684-z

 Here, using a multimodal approach that combines high-resolution imaging techniques, we obtain evidence for the occurrence of aromatic amino acids formed abiotically and subsequently preserved at depth beneath the Atlantis Massif (Mid-Atlantic Ridge). These aromatic amino acids may have been formed through Friedel–Crafts reactions catalysed by an iron-rich saponite clay during a late alteration stage of the massif serpentinites. Demonstrating the potential of fluid-rock interactions in the oceanic lithosphere to generate amino acids abiotically gives credence to the hydrothermal theory for the origin of life, and may shed light on ancient metabolisms and the functioning of the present-day deep biosphere.

It's now known that nucleotides (RNA and DNA are strings of nucleotides) can form spontaneously:
Cafferty, B., Fialho, D., Khanam, J. et al. Spontaneous formation and base pairing of plausible prebiotic nucleotides in water. Nat Commun 7, 11328 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11328

Spontaneous formation and base pairing of plausible prebiotic nucleotides in water

Here we show that two plausible prebiotic heterocycles, melamine and barbituric acid, form glycosidic linkages with ribose and ribose-5-phosphate in water to produce nucleosides and nucleotides in good yields. Even without purification, these nucleotides base pair in aqueous solution to create linear supramolecular assemblies containing thousands of ordered nucleotides. Nucleotide anomerization and supramolecular assemblies favour the biologically relevant β-anomer form of these ribonucleotides, revealing abiotic mechanisms by which nucleotide structure and configuration could have been originally favoured. These findings indicate that nucleotide formation and selection may have been robust processes on the prebiotic Earth, if other nucleobases preceded those of extant life.

It's notable that the most essential organelle for life of the kind we have on Earth, it the simplest, and spontaneously assembles into vesicles.

All of this shows that there is no scientific reason God was wrong in saying life was brought forth from the Earth.     The evidence clearly indicates that it was.

Would you like to see more?

 

[dad2]

Quote

O.K.   For a long time, the block has been amino acids.    Without abiotic AAs, abiogenesis is notfeasible.  

Nothing is feasible that has no support and only conjecture, especially when God tells us otherwise

Quote

  For a long time, we know that amino acids and short protein sequences (peptides) have been known to form in space

Looking at the moon that was likely bomblasted by earth debris in the past (flood year, etc) as well as asteroids that also possibly had an earth origin, it does not mean that what we find there started there.

Quote

 Here, using a multimodal approach that combines high-resolution imaging techniques, we obtain evidence for the occurrence of aromatic amino acids formed abiotically and subsequently preserved at depth beneath the Atlantis Massif (Mid-Atlantic Ridge). These aromatic amino acids may have been formed through Friedel–Crafts reactions catalysed by an iron-rich saponite clay during a late alteration stage of the massif serpentinites. Demonstrating the potential of fluid-rock interactions in the oceanic lithosphere to generate amino acids abiotically gives credence to the hydrothermal theory for the origin of life, and may shed light on ancient metabolisms and the functioning of the present-day deep biosphere.

Since the flood covered the earth in the waters (or much of them) that we now have, we cannot say what pre flood causes may have happened. You seek to attribute all things to a godless scenario

Quote

Here we show that two plausible prebiotic heterocycles, melamine and barbituric acid, form glycosidic linkages with ribose and ribose-5-phosphate in water to produce nucleosides and nucleotides in good yields. Even without purification, these nucleotides base pair in aqueous solution to create linear supramolecular assemblies containing thousands of ordered nucleotides.

Mixing things in a created water and created planet is not creating things. How things now tend to group doesn't matter.

Quote

These findings indicate that nucleotide formation and selection may have been robust processes on the prebiotic Earth,

There was no such thing as some prebiotic planet. That is an invention and fantasy you need. Unless we are talking the first few days of creation before life was made.

Quote

All of this shows that there is no scientific reason God was wrong in saying life was brought forth from the Earth.     The evidence clearly indicates that it was.

There is no reason from any science to claim that He did not Personally form man as He said and operate on the man to make a woman. No evidence suggests otherwise. The context of God bring forth life from the earth was on a day creation week.

[RV_Wizard]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

All of this shows that there is no scientific reason God was wrong in saying life was brought forth from the Earth.     The evidence clearly indicates that it was.

The living things which dwell on the earth were created on day six of the creation.  The Bible (which you do NOT accept as God's word) states this in terms so perfectly clear even Joe Biden could understand the meaning.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

The living things which dwell on the earth were created on day six of the creation.

That's the problem here for a literal reinterpretation of God's word...

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth:  5 And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew

But in Genesis 1, the text says that the Earth and plants were created on different days.   They can't both be literally true.   So which one do you think is true?