... As Senor Wences used to say: "S'OK? S'awright!"
Posted on 10/20/2003 10:49:13 AM PDT by yonif
... As Senor Wences used to say: "S'OK? S'awright!"
Being understood, obviously! :-)Oh, that's what it means. What are you afraid of?
Nonsense, and totally false. Evolutionists themselves have been saying for a long time that life on earth is over 4 billion years old. Now that a Christian agrees that life started at or shortly when the Earth was formed you start with this nonsensical garbage.
<br Fact is that no one knows when the first life appeared and neither you nor anyone can prove or disprove otherwise.
But we sure see the echoes of that event. (The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, COBE, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, etc.)
Here's an interesting article for the Lurkers, I'm pinging all of you in case you'd like to add something or disagree:
Yes indeed. Scientists should stick to things they can observe and measure with their own eyes instead of hypothesizing about what can never be ascertained.
I guess it's OK to answer you if you're talking to me. J. William Schopf is the only one I know of who has claimed to find 3.5 billion year old protist fossils.
There are no claims for 4 billion year old life of which I am aware. I do recall some old 3.8 billion-year-old sediments in Greenland which contain carbon with an isotopic composition typical of biological residue. The actual origin of this "fossil" carbon is quite unclear and nobody is claiming otherwise.
You can read all about Schopf and the Greenland "fossil carbon" here. Both are now in dispute and not widely accepted, even as I said. So what is the nonsense and what is false?
Now, we had a big thread on Schopf's book Cradle of Life maybe three years ago. Most of us on the pro-science side have read it. I for one was disappointed to hear that Schopf's claim had been challenged and he had withdrawn it. (He has since reasserted it after further study, but not many are buying now. Follow the preceding link and pay attention for once.) I was excited about Schopf's finds when I thought they were real, despite the problems they posed for being "too complex, too early" as the creationists are still spinning it. Well, it just didn't work out that way. We don't have the exciting early fossils, but we also don't have the "too early, too soon problem." You take the good with the bad and vice versa.
If you have any information that what I have said is not true you should present it. If you can't do that, you should shut up. You need to be a lot more specific about what is false and what is nonsense when you go flinging those charges. Your posts consistently and recklessly spew false accusations.
The authors report [regarding Schopf's Apex chert fossils] new research on the type and re-collected material, involving mapping, optical and electron microscopy, digital image analysis, micro-Raman spectroscopy and other geochemical techniques. The authors reinterpret the purported microfossil-like structure as secondary artefacts formed from amorphous graphite within multiple generations of metalliferous hydrothermal vein chert and volcanic glass. Although there is no support for primary biological morphology, a Fischer–Tropsch-type synthesis of carbon compounds and carbon isotopic fractionation is inferred for one of the oldest known hydrothermal systems on Earth....
The authors present [regarding the purported 3.8 billion year old Greenland fossil carbon] new geologic, petrologic, and geochemical evidence that favors a metasomatized ultramafic igneous origin for rocks previously considered to be BIFs, and the authors suggest that it is highly improbable that the rocks hosted life at the time of their formation.
I'm sorry to point out that you are completely wrong about this. In most cases a hypothesis is made and then a test - or measure if you prefer - is derived to validate it. As is Einstein's case, the technology to measure what he hypothesized didn't exist. Today we can validate and measure most of his hypothesis'.
I don't think you fully understand gore's position. He means "see with their own eyes" quite literally. This means he does not accept the work of physics that dates the age of the earth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.