Posted on 03/24/2007 10:28:12 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
This sentence makes no sense. "Science" is cold, hard, fact. As in water is H20; earth's atmosphere contains nitrogen; the earth revolves around the sun; when chlorine gas mixes with water you get hydrochloric acid; and so forth. For you to say "Science favors" is nothing more than a hypothesis - not science.
AGE OF THE EARTHSo far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found. Nevertheless, scientists have been able to determine the probable age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by assuming that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age.
The ages of Earth and Moon rocks and of meteorites are measured by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements that occur naturally in rocks and minerals and that decay with half lives of 700 million to more than 100 billion years to stable isotopes of other elements. These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements.
Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion years). [See Editor's Note.] These ancient rocks have been dated by a number of radiometric dating methods and the consistency of the results give scientists confidence that the ages are correct to within a few percent. An interesting feature of these ancient rocks is that they are not from any sort of "primordial crust" but are lava flows and sediments deposited in shallow water, an indication that Earth history began well before these rocks were deposited. In Western Australia, single zircon crystals found in younger sedimentary rocks have radiometric ages of as much as 4.3 billion years, making these tiny crystals the oldest materials to be found on Earth so far. The source rocks for these zircon crystals have not yet been found. The ages measured for Earth's oldest rocks and oldest crystals show that the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age but do not reveal the exact age of Earth's formation.
The best age for the Earth (4.54 Ga) is based on old, presumed single-stage leads coupled with the Pb ratios in troilite from iron meteorites, specifically the Canyon Diablo meteorite. In addition, mineral grains (zircon) with U-Pb ages of 4.4 Ga have recently been reported from sedimentary rocks in west-central Australia.
The Moon is a more primitive planet than Earth because it has not been disturbed by plate tectonics; thus, some of its more ancient rocks are more plentiful. Only a small number of rocks were returned to Earth by the six Apollo and three Luna missions. These rocks vary greatly in age, a reflection of their different ages of formation and their subsequent histories. The oldest dated moon rocks, however, have ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years and provide a minimum age for the formation of our nearest planetary neighbor.
[snip]
"Abiogenesis" means the formation of life from inanimate matter. Scientifically, we know that inanimate matter is older than animated matter. Therefor, animated matter had to form from inanimate matter. Thus, abiogenesis is axiomatic (perhaps the word "axiomatic" confused you; it means "taken as a given") because life is here today.
Again, you can couch your position in any terms you wish, but you are completely and totally wrong (but defining terms any way you want to is simply another way evolutionists can prove anything they wish)!
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis - noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. [Origin: a-6 + biogenesis; coined by T. H. Huxley in 1870]
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis n. The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.
The rest of your post is such hogwash, I won't even bother to refute it except to say that abiogenesis can only be axiomatic to people who are willing to toss science completely out the window and believe in fiction.
Read the truth about your evolutionist "wet dream" here.
Abiogenesis is spontaneous whether it occurs naturally (read: without intelligent intervention) or occurs via Intelligent Design.
That abiogenesis occured is axiomatic; we are here.
Now, *how* abiogenesis occured, with or without external bias/aid...well, that is up for debate.
Abiogenesis is spontaneous whether it occurs naturally (read: without intelligent intervention)..
It doesn't occur this way, as science has repeatedly shown.
or occurs via Intelligent Design.
If it occured this way, then you have a living intelligence giving birth to life. In other words: life from life.
In either case, there is no such thing as abiogenesis ("spontaneous generation") except in the rather fruitful minds of evolutionsts pushing their belief in naturalism.
BTW, the very word "abiogenesis" comes from the Greek: the Greek prefix "a" means "without", "bio" means "life" and "genesis" means "beginning." So "abiogenesis" literally means
"without life a beginning".
Therefore, your assertion that "abiogenesis" can mean it "occurs via Intelligent Design" is a self-contradictory statement. It's not "abiogenesis" if it were planned and created by an intelligent designer.
Unknown.
As far as logic is concerned, life could come from a computer. Logic doesn't presume that the Designer is alive (in any sense that we'd understand, anyway).
Well, if a computer builds your DNA from lifeless acids and bases, then animates you...well, then you were created via abiogenesis.
Well, if a computer builds your DNA from lifeless acids and bases, then animates you...well, then you were created via abiogenesis.
Wow. Assuming for a second that this could actually happen, where do you think the computer came from???
You guys will go to any length to defend evolution, even making the most absurd and asinine statements in the process. Logic and language mean nothing to you. No defense is too small, no outrageous comments too big.
Utterly astounding but oh so typical.
“Logic” doesn’t care where a hypothetical computer came from, that’s beyond the scope of the issue.
...and you’re one of the few people here who isn’t clever enough to see that I’ve been disproving Evolution at every step.
You need to listen and study far more than you are talking.
“Logic” doesn’t care where a hypothetical computer came from, that’s beyond the scope of the issue.
Oy! Head, meet wall. O.o
Oy! Your head needs to meet a decent textbook on logic.
Why not?
Southack is doing it with his probability calculations. He has only one aim in mind.
Has evolution an aim?
Yes, I think the aim is to survive.
So my thought is the letter sequences have better survival rates the closer they are to “to be or not to be”.
But environment may change to “Lord, what fools these mortals be!”
Debugging is in progress...
Aiming requires direction. How is that compatible with Evolution?
You need a fitness test that does not aim.
Because evolution is mindless.
I am not familiar with your problem with Southack. Southack is not evolution and is allowed to have a point. If you do have a concern, it would help to post exactly what contains the questionable math.
Evolution has no aim, since, by evolutions definition, things evolve that die out. In fact, most things(species) die out(all living things die or cease to exist). Moreover, natural selection is external to the organism undergoing evolution. Its influence, therefore, is felt by organisms and should select all organisms. What additionally complicates the problem is that every part subject to change is a degree of freedom involved in what would be the calculation of "fitness". If "fitness" is a function then it has a single value for all of the "inputs". Finally, as in your example of "to be or not to be", everything would end up in "to be or not to be" and nothing would ever be left "behind" such as "to buy a mango pit"
Interestingly enough, if he goes through with his example as planned (i.e. “to be or not to be” hardcoded as a fitness test), then his model isn’t going to “evolve” any longer after it hits its hard-coded target (nothing else would pass his fitness test).
Which is to say, he’s going to disprove Evolution by trying to prove it.
It’s just that he doesn’t see why aiming is contrary to Evolution. Yet.
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.