Round Earthers - explain this? (plus, hello!)

Quote from: Kami on May 30, 2016, 07:21:38 AM

is that you, papa legba?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
if you are interested

And it is relevant in dating materials to what age?

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2016, 12:01:50 PM

Quote from: Kami on May 30, 2016, 07:21:38 AM

is that you, papa legba?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
if you are interested

And it is relevant in dating materials to what age?

"the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by radiocarbon dating are around 50,000 years ago, although special preparation methods occasionally permit dating of older sample"
took me 10 seconds to click the link and find that passage. You should try this, it's pretty easy!

Quote from: Kami on June 01, 2016, 12:45:26 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2016, 12:01:50 PM

Quote from: Kami on May 30, 2016, 07:21:38 AM

is that you, papa legba?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
if you are interested

And it is relevant in dating materials to what age?

"the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by radiocarbon dating are around 50,000 years ago, although special preparation methods occasionally permit dating of older sample"
took me 10 seconds to click the link and find that passage. You should try this, it's pretty easy!

My question would be about the world "reliably". Unless you know someone was there 50,000 years ago, you are just extrapolating. You can only know "reliably" as far back as human history records. So IF you know when pharaoh so and so lived and you date something from his tomb, that is "reliable". If no one recorded it, it is just an estimate. So probably reliable estimates are only ~7000 yrs (human recorded history). And this ASSUMES that the same conditions occurred around the world (amount of carbon (do LOCAL forest fires or volcanoes change this?), absorption (do all materials - plants/animals absorb carbon at the same speed), temperature, pressure, wind, weather, etc. to deposit carbon everywhere on Earth uniformly). Lots of assumptions and variables to extrapolate off of.

Quote from: Jadyyn on June 01, 2016, 07:17:37 AM

Quote from: Kami on June 01, 2016, 12:45:26 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2016, 12:01:50 PM

Quote from: Kami on May 30, 2016, 07:21:38 AM

is that you, papa legba?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
if you are interested

And it is relevant in dating materials to what age?

"the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by radiocarbon dating are around 50,000 years ago, although special preparation methods occasionally permit dating of older sample"
took me 10 seconds to click the link and find that passage. You should try this, it's pretty easy!

My question would be about the world "reliably". Unless you know someone was there 50,000 years ago, you are just extrapolating. You can only know "reliably" as far back as human history records. So IF you know when pharaoh so and so lived and you date something from his tomb, that is "reliable". If no one recorded it, it is just an estimate. So probably reliable estimates are only ~7000 yrs (human recorded history). And this ASSUMES that the same conditions occurred around the world (amount of carbon (do LOCAL forest fires or volcanoes change this?), absorption (do all materials - plants/animals absorb carbon at the same speed), temperature, pressure, wind, weather, etc. to deposit carbon everywhere on Earth uniformly). Lots of assumptions and variables to extrapolate off of.

Okay, I'll give you that. But I think that the people conducting these methods know more about it than me or you and if I have no evidence that I can't trust them, I tend to believe them. Also:
Okay, we assume that we can reliably tell the age of an object which is (verified by other sources) 7.000 yrs old. Now we have an object which has a much less concentration of radiocarbon, in fact less than every other object we observed from 7.000yrs ago until now. Then I think we can safely assume that it is much older. Of course this is no certainty, but a very high probability.

Quote from: Kami on June 01, 2016, 07:54:54 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on June 01, 2016, 07:17:37 AM

Quote from: Kami on June 01, 2016, 12:45:26 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2016, 12:01:50 PM

Quote from: Kami on May 30, 2016, 07:21:38 AM

is that you, papa legba?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
if you are interested

And it is relevant in dating materials to what age?

"the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by radiocarbon dating are around 50,000 years ago, although special preparation methods occasionally permit dating of older sample"
took me 10 seconds to click the link and find that passage. You should try this, it's pretty easy!

My question would be about the world "reliably". Unless you know someone was there 50,000 years ago, you are just extrapolating. You can only know "reliably" as far back as human history records. So IF you know when pharaoh so and so lived and you date something from his tomb, that is "reliable". If no one recorded it, it is just an estimate. So probably reliable estimates are only ~7000 yrs (human recorded history). And this ASSUMES that the same conditions occurred around the world (amount of carbon (do LOCAL forest fires or volcanoes change this?), absorption (do all materials - plants/animals absorb carbon at the same speed), temperature, pressure, wind, weather, etc. to deposit carbon everywhere on Earth uniformly). Lots of assumptions and variables to extrapolate off of.

Okay, I'll give you that. But I think that the people conducting these methods know more about it than me or you and if I have no evidence that I can't trust them, I tend to believe them. Also:
Okay, we assume that we can reliably tell the age of an object which is (verified by other sources) 7.000 yrs old. Now we have an object which has a much less concentration of radiocarbon, in fact less than every other object we observed from 7.000yrs ago until now. Then I think we can safely assume that it is much older. Of course this is no certainty, but a very high probability.

Possibly... depending on variables and location. For example, how old is that rock from supposedly Mars with the worm on it they found in Antarctica? How would you "age" that or would you even try? Would current calibration work? Or a fish inside a cave (isolated) vs out in the ocean (different nutrients, chemicals, environmental exposure)... will you get the same results? Other calibration issues (https://www.icr.org/article/293)

This is also why laboratories typically want to know where samples are from.

Just to point out a problem... Dating various volcanic rocks, ash and debrise. How exactly do you do that?

With Mt St Helens, the strata is composed of airfall deposit (pumice and ash), then layered volcanic ash (pyroclastic flow), then the mud flow, and now whatever (space dust (age?), wind blown topsoil, etc.) on top of all that. So the question becomes, since volcanic ash (and lava) come from MANY MILES under the Earth to the surface and cover existing layers for HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of miles, how do you "age" that? Is the ash/lava "new" or "old" (MILES of sediment old)? This covers existing layers of sediment. Will it have the same "age" based on radioactive decay? What if an animal or tree is caught in it? There have been volcanic eruptions that changed the climate and deposited stuff world-wide (like Tambora, Krakatoa, etc.). How does that affect "aging" things? Does that put more "old" carbon-14 into circulation for radiocarbon dating that plants and animals "eat" and becomes part of them? The Yellowstone super-volcano erupts periodically. How has this changed the amount of carbon and radioactive elements that plants and animals "eat"?

When you add extrapolation to all these types of variables and conditions, quite frankly, I don't know what the "reliability" is. Interpolation (within say ~7000 yrs) is probably OK (reliable) but you have to be VERY careful with extrapolation to see if it is even POSSIBLE.

Extrapolate how big you will be based on your growth rate year 1 and 5. Interpolating, probably yrs 2-4 will be OK. But 10, 20, 50, 100, 1000 (hey, Biblically people lived up to 800 yrs)? BTW, this works in reverse too. Take years 40 and 50 and try to figure out when you were born. You have to be careful...

There are lots of Sky programs (like Stellarium). One thing people like to do is see where the stars/planets were when Jesus was born to figure out "the Star of Bethlehem". There are actually BOOKS written on this. These people don't use "common sense" or understand astronomy (if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail). As anything that can be followed in the sky at the latitude of Jerusalem has to be in the Earth's atmosphere (pretty low actually), Stellarium is not going to give you squat.

Quote from: Jadyyn on June 01, 2016, 09:35:12 AM

Quote from: Kami on June 01, 2016, 07:54:54 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on June 01, 2016, 07:17:37 AM

Quote from: Kami on June 01, 2016, 12:45:26 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2016, 12:01:50 PM

Quote from: Kami on May 30, 2016, 07:21:38 AM

is that you, papa legba?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
if you are interested

And it is relevant in dating materials to what age?

"the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by radiocarbon dating are around 50,000 years ago, although special preparation methods occasionally permit dating of older sample"
took me 10 seconds to click the link and find that passage. You should try this, it's pretty easy!

My question would be about the world "reliably". Unless you know someone was there 50,000 years ago, you are just extrapolating. You can only know "reliably" as far back as human history records. So IF you know when pharaoh so and so lived and you date something from his tomb, that is "reliable". If no one recorded it, it is just an estimate. So probably reliable estimates are only ~7000 yrs (human recorded history). And this ASSUMES that the same conditions occurred around the world (amount of carbon (do LOCAL forest fires or volcanoes change this?), absorption (do all materials - plants/animals absorb carbon at the same speed), temperature, pressure, wind, weather, etc. to deposit carbon everywhere on Earth uniformly). Lots of assumptions and variables to extrapolate off of.

Okay, I'll give you that. But I think that the people conducting these methods know more about it than me or you and if I have no evidence that I can't trust them, I tend to believe them. Also:
Okay, we assume that we can reliably tell the age of an object which is (verified by other sources) 7.000 yrs old. Now we have an object which has a much less concentration of radiocarbon, in fact less than every other object we observed from 7.000yrs ago until now. Then I think we can safely assume that it is much older. Of course this is no certainty, but a very high probability.

Possibly... depending on variables and location. For example, how old is that rock from supposedly Mars with the worm on it they found in Antarctica? How would you "age" that or would you even try? Would current calibration work? Or a fish inside a cave (isolated) vs out in the ocean (different nutrients, chemicals, environmental exposure)... will you get the same results? Other calibration issues (https://www.icr.org/article/293)

This is also why laboratories typically want to know where samples are from.

Just to point out a problem... Dating various volcanic rocks, ash and debrise. How exactly do you do that?

With Mt St Helens, the strata is composed of airfall deposit (pumice and ash), then layered volcanic ash (pyroclastic flow), then the mud flow, and now whatever (space dust (age?), wind blown topsoil, etc.) on top of all that. So the question becomes, since volcanic ash (and lava) come from MANY MILES under the Earth to the surface and cover existing layers for HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of miles, how do you "age" that? Is the ash/lava "new" or "old" (MILES of sediment old)? This covers existing layers of sediment. Will it have the same "age" based on radioactive decay? What if an animal or tree is caught in it? There have been volcanic eruptions that changed the climate and deposited stuff world-wide (like Tambora, Krakatoa, etc.). How does that affect "aging" things? Does that put more "old" carbon-14 into circulation for radiocarbon dating that plants and animals "eat" and becomes part of them? The Yellowstone super-volcano erupts periodically. How has this changed the amount of carbon and radioactive elements that plants and animals "eat"?

When you add extrapolation to all these types of variables and conditions, quite frankly, I don't know what the "reliability" is. Interpolation (within say ~7000 yrs) is probably OK (reliable) but you have to be VERY careful with extrapolation to see if it is even POSSIBLE.

Extrapolate how big you will be based on your growth rate year 1 and 5. Interpolating, probably yrs 2-4 will be OK. But 10, 20, 50, 100, 1000 (hey, Biblically people lived up to 800 yrs)? BTW, this works in reverse too. Take years 40 and 50 and try to figure out when you were born. You have to be careful...

There are lots of Sky programs (like Stellarium). One thing people like to do is see where the stars/planets were when Jesus was born to figure out "the Star of Bethlehem". There are actually BOOKS written on this. These people don't use "common sense" or understand astronomy (if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail). As anything that can be followed in the sky at the latitude of Jerusalem has to be in the Earth's atmosphere (pretty low actually), Stellarium is not going to give you squat.

Why is this the first time I find out you're a creationist or at least see some valid points in it?

Uniformitarianism was an assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates.

BTW, an interesting issue for evolutionists - Uniformitarianism.

Quote

Uniformitarianism was an assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates.

For anyone who believes in forms of radiometric dating methods such as potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium, these rely on uniformitarianism being true.

Biologically, every living thing has come from a previous living thing - without exception both in nature and laboratory. Per uniformitarianism then, life on Earth has to come from either space aliens or God.

Space aliens just postpone the question because where did they come from? The living God of the Bible has no beginning or end (and is outside of our timeline anyways) so caters to this perfectly and is consistent with the biological science we see.

Life can not come from non-life.

Evolutionists like uniformitarianism for dating geology millions and billions of years but dislike it or don't use it when discussing animals being millions of years old. To be consistent, you can't have both.

Quote from: Jadyyn on June 02, 2016, 07:40:46 AM

BTW, an interesting issue for evolutionists - Uniformitarianism.

Quote

Uniformitarianism was an assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates.

For anyone who believes in forms of radiometric dating methods such as potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium, these rely on uniformitarianism being true.

Yes. The presumption is that the half life of, say, potassium-40 is the same now as it always has been. If that presumption is not correct, then the method is compromised. There is no reason to believe that it has changed, though.

Quote

Biologically, every living thing has come from a previous living thing - without exception both in nature and laboratory. Per uniformitarianism then, life on Earth has to come from either space aliens or God.

That's a misinterpretation. The chemical, nuclear, and mechanical processes are presumed to be the same now as when the Earth was forming.

The chemical and physical properties of, say, carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen are presumed to be constant through time. Life forms are known to change through time as they adapt to better fit static or changing conditions, but the underlying physical laws and processes don't. 

If you have a half-billion km² laboratory with chemicals continuously interacting in the presence of a strong source of energy for a few billion years, even highly unlikely arrangements and reactions have a feasible probability of occurring a few times. It only takes once.

Quote

Space aliens just postpone the question because where did they come from? The living God of the Bible has no beginning or end (and is outside of our timeline anyways) so caters to this perfectly and is consistent with the biological science we see.

The origin of life is an interesting and active field of research; simply blowing it off as "God did it" (or aliens) isn't terribly useful and is scientifically uninteresting since it can't be tested.

Quote

Life can not come from non-life.

That hasn't been proven. Highly-evolved life forms generated directly from non-life are so unlikely as to be impossible for practical purposes. Very primitive life? Maybe, maybe not. Life, at its most basic, is based on chemicals, physical conditions, and an influx of energy. The only way for chemicals to become arranged into a live organism known at this time is for another live organism to do it, but there's no reason to believe that that's the only way, at least for very, very primitive life.

Quote

Evolutionists like uniformitarianism for dating geology millions and billions of years but dislike it or don't use it when discussing animals being millions of years old. To be consistent, you can't have both.

Citation, please.

If you have a half-billion km2 laboratory with chemicals continuously interacting in the presence of a strong source of energy for a few billion years, even highly unlikely arrangements and reactions have a feasible probability of occurring a few times. It only takes once.

That is the concept of uniformitarianism though - that the same processes don't change. Although chemical and physical processes seem to be constant, other variables and conditions (amount of C-14 available) can change rapidly - especially in catastrophic situations (volcanoes, a world-wide flood, comet hitting the Earth, etc.)

Without going into detail, the Bible even speaks of the rainbow. Before the Flood, if there were no rainbows, the atmospheric conditions would be different than after the Flood. The change would also cause other things to happen like life-spans of people getting shorter.

Making biology an exception because something might happen instead of what is currently happening that scientifically has been observed to happen is just blind faith (especially when it contradicts what we see all the time everywhere we look).

Abiogenesis is a religion not science and is no better than believing in God.

The Biblical God at least (1) conforms to what is observed - life creating life - Gen 2:7 "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

(2) has recorded history by humans (if you choose to believe it. Picking and choosing which history to believe is a different story).

Life from non-life is purely theoretical

and unless demonstrated in nature or laboratory will always be an item of pure blind faith that does not coincide with what we observe day-to-day (sort of like the FE fantasy).

Quote

If you have a half-billion km2 laboratory with chemicals continuously interacting in the presence of a strong source of energy for a few billion years, even highly unlikely arrangements and reactions have a feasible probability of occurring a few times. It only takes once.

Simply calculate the statistics of creating a protein composed of ~1000 amino acids (~4¹⁰⁰⁰ and another exact same one made of nucleic acids - DNA - at the same time in the same space (<width of a cell) ~4²⁰⁰⁰ ?). This is no way even remotely close to making a cell with ribosomes and mitochondria that are like 10x even bigger (does NOT mean it takes 10x longer but like ~12,000 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE harder ~4^20,000 ?).

No citation.

Just both try to make the Earth "old" using opposite assumptions (uniformitarianism for geology and non-uniformitarianism for biology).

Firstly, hello! I'm Joe, and I'm new to this site. I've been researching FE in depth for a while now, and I'm looking forward to some intelligent discussion on this forum.

One thing that round earth theory relies on, but I've never seen justified, is the unending spin of the earth. Spin anything, anywhere, and you'll see that it eventually slows down. The same would be true for a globe earth - even if it starts off spinning at a gazillion miles per hour, it won't be spinning that fast for very long, and it certainly won't keep spinning for millions of years! Because everything observed slows down when spun, and round earth theory is a claim that opposes this, the burden of proof is on the round earth theory believers to justify why earth keeps spinning so fast.

So basically, how does your theory explain the spinning of the earth after all this time? 

Quote

Quote from: Jadyyn on June 02, 2016, 04:01:55 PM

That is the concept of uniformitarianism though - that the same processes don't change. Although chemical and physical processes seem to be constant, other variables and conditions (amount of C-14 available) can change rapidly - especially in catastrophic situations (volcanoes, a world-wide flood, comet hitting the Earth, etc.)

Citations, please. I'm especially interested in reliable geologic (not biblical) evidence for the comet hits and world-wide flood.

Geology depends on assumption - it is NOT as scientific as you suppose.

IF you BELIEVE something like the Grand Canyon was composed over millions/billions of years then you are looking for something totally different from IF you BELIEVE it was deposited over a couple years during/after the Flood. So the ENTIRE Grand Canyon is geological "proof" of a world-wide flood. Since as I pointed out, Mt St Helens is an event that we actually WITNESSED that caused rapid stratification, it would seem that the later is more probable (witnessed) than the former (theoretical). So you are not going to find "proof" (reliable geologic evidence) of a flood INSIDE a couple strata when the entire strata is the "proof".

Supposedly a comet hit the Earth and killed dinosaurs (assuming millions/billions of years time-scale). Do comets hit the Earth? Does impacting the Earth put debris into the atmosphere? Does it cause forest fires? Would a large enough comet cause debris to be spread world-wide (like volcanic eruptions)? Is the Earth the same before and after impact? How is it different? These catastrophic events need to be accounted for in any measurements. Are they? Do we know when such events happened? Where in the strata they occurred (assuming millions/billions of years)?

Quote

Quote

Without going into detail, the Bible even speaks of the rainbow. Before the Flood, if there were no rainbows, the atmospheric conditions would be different than after the Flood. The change would also cause other things to happen like life-spans of people getting shorter.

Irrelevant speculation.

Actually quite relevant. We have RECORDED atmospheric change by humans. If you only want THEORETICAL assumptions (except where people support what science THINKS happened) then why bother with ANY history? Just make up a theory - sounds like FE to me.

Quote

Quote

Making biology an exception because something might happen instead of what is currently happening that scientifically has been observed to happen is just blind faith (especially when it contradicts what we see all the time everywhere we look).

Exception to what? Scientific hypotheses precede experimental verification. Sometimes they survive, often needing modification, many fail or are simply replaced by other hypotheses and theories before they definitively fail.

Exception to uniformitarianism. When something is observed continuously (life from life) and a theory say the opposite (life from non-life), that should be looked at seriously. Imagine the Big Bang where gravity (as observed continuously) is "turned off" (the opposite) where it is needed by the theory. Would scientists "buy it"?

Quote

Quote

Abiogenesis is a religion not science and is no better than believing in God.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. It can be and is being tested. There are other competing hypotheses.
Abiogenesis: "Maybe this happened." "Let's try some experiments."
Religion: "God created life." "How can you be sure?" "It says so in this book written long ago and translated many times, so you must accept it as truth."
See the difference?

No I don't. Both are beliefs. Giving it a fancy scientific sounding name like "hypothesis" doesn't mean it is not a belief that someone has. If it is BLIND faith (contradicts what we do observe and something that has never been observed to happen), it is religion.

Why is God creating something not a hypothesis? It happens to conform to "life from life" (supports what we observe continuously) - especially when humans experienced and recorded it.

No one experienced or recorded abiogenesis. Starting with the premise that the Earth is millions/billions of years old (strata - this is the "book written long ago and interpreted many times" of the scientific world), then hoping that hundreds/thousands of enzymes/proteins/structures/nucleus formed randomly within a small space (< width of a bacterium) and at the same time (how long do these ALL last once formed? weeks? months?), is highly unlikely (really impossible in the universe ~4^20,000 just for ONE average protein) to me (see the math below).

So God hypothesis (witnessed) > abiogenesis hypothesis (purely theoretical at best).

Quote

Quote

The Biblical God at least (1) conforms to what is observed - life creating life - Gen 2:7 "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Are there any other accounts of supernatural being(s) creating life from non-life? Credible accounts would be preferred. I challenge the assertion that what you describe "conforms to what is observed", which is biological (i.e., non-supernatural) life creating life.

Are there any other scientific accounts of "life from non-life" - credible ones? same argument...

"Conforms to what is observed" - in EVERY case observed - life from life. You know of any exceptions?

One other thing... IF the Bible IS true, life is the breath of God (the cause of living things). This means it would be spiritual and therefore the physical world and science will not be able to create it. Even IF (a HUGE "IF") somehow a cell randomly was created, it would not be alive (what IS the difference between a living and dead cell? Chemically, they are the same).

Forget about creating a cell. Just take a measurably, verifiably live cell, kill it (certifiably dead) and bring it back to life - it has all the chemicals/structures already. Good luck with that.

Quote

Quote

(2) has recorded history by humans (if you choose to believe it. Picking and choosing which history to believe is a different story).

It sounds like you aren't too confident about how reliable this "recorded history" is, but you choose to believe it yourself.

When people are there and recording things, I would go more by that (unless it can be demonstrated false) than in the same time period just going by what theory says is supposed to happen.

Quote

Life from non-life is purely theoretical

You're right. I already said that.

Quote

Quote

and unless demonstrated in nature or laboratory will always be an item of pure blind faith that does not coincide with what we observe day-to-day (sort of like the FE fantasy).

Not really. I see five basic possibilities:
1) Abiogenesis is actually the origin of life on earth, and...
.1a) It is successfully accomplished in the lab
.1b) It is never successfully accomplished in the lab
Or
2)  Abiogenesis is not actually the origin of life on earth, and...
.2a) It is actually accomplished in the lab, anyway, because it's physically possible
.2b) It is never successfully accomplished in the lab...
..2bi) Because it's not possible
..2bii) Because it's physically possible but the right experiment wasn't done

Even if one of the the a) cases happen, it might or might not be possible to distinguish between 1a) and 2a), although either of those results would no doubt spur a massive research effort to try. AFAIK, we're currently at 1b), 2bi), or 2bii), and can't tell which it is. But this isn't really my field of expertise and I'm certainly not up on the latest.

But, abiogenesis, without those experiments is being taught in schools as FACT. Experiments that you say above, have NOT yielded any positive results that I am aware of. Do you know of any?

Trust me, IF someone somewhere created "life from non-life", EVERY laboratory and biology class in school would be demonstrating this CONSTANTLY.

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you have a half-billion km2 laboratory with chemicals continuously interacting in the presence of a strong source of energy for a few billion years, even highly unlikely arrangements and reactions have a feasible probability of occurring a few times. It only takes once.

Simply calculate the statistics of creating a protein composed of ~1000 amino acids (~4¹⁰⁰⁰ and another exact same one made of nucleic acids - DNA - at the same time in the same space (<width of a cell) ~4²⁰⁰⁰ ?). This is no way even remotely close to making a cell with ribosomes and mitochondria that are like 10x even bigger (does NOT mean it takes 10x longer but like ~12,000 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE harder ~4^20,000 ?).

Do you think that's the only recipe that will work? If so, on what basis?

Yes I do. I am always amazed at this. Currently what is observed is that a cell (even the simplest bacterium) has LOTS of enzymes, proteins, structures and nucleus that SPLITS. These are already preformed and DNA just "unzips". The billions of nucleotides are already there in sequence.

To form the initial bacterium, these would all have to come together randomly. As demonstrated above, just creating a single average protein has statistical numbers that are HUGE. Furthermore, the SPACE (km²) and TIME (billions of years) you state does NOT help. These enzymes, proteins, structures and nucleus (2 sets - actual and blueprint) need to form in the same space (<width of a bacterium) and at the same time (days, weeks? - how long do these last floating somewhere even IF they could form?). Even IF an average protein was created here and another 1000 km away, so what? IF it was created on day 1000 and the other 1 million years later, so what? Sorry, the odds are NOT in your favor with TIME and SPACE.

You would need hundreds/thousands of enzymes/proteins/structures/nucleus formed at ~same time (VERY short) and in ~same space (VERY small). Sorry, but the RANDOM odds are NOT in your favor.

Furthermore, some of these inside the cell must ALL be "right-handed" or "left-handed". Random processes would create both in equal numbers. You would need to wait VERY VERY long times to get that one moment when everything is just one "handed" inside the cell.

Quote

No citation.

It's just your opinion, then?

Quote

Just both try to make the Earth "old" using opposite assumptions (uniformitarianism for geology and non-uniformitarianism for biology).

Thanks for sharing.

What wouöd the earth stop from spinning? All things here on earth are subject to friction, the earth itself moves through vacuum, which does not cause any friction.
The earth does in fact slow down, but that happens really slowly, like 1 second per 100 million years or so, but that happens due to tidal forces.

Quote from: Kami on May 27, 2016, 04:13:16 PM

What wouöd the earth stop from spinning? All things here on earth are subject to friction, the earth itself moves through vacuum, which does not cause any friction.
The earth does in fact slow down, but that happens really slowly, like 1 second per 100 million years or so, but that happens due to tidal forces.

So if Earth is in a vacuum then it follows that all space craft are in a vacuum. So please explain how they can fire up engines and thrusters in a vacuum? I believe you need oxygen of some sort. So your argument does not stack up and neither does an argument for space travel. Physics!!! Try looking into it

Quote from: Kami on May 27, 2016, 04:13:16 PM

What wouöd the earth stop from spinning? All things here on earth are subject to friction, the earth itself moves through vacuum, which does not cause any friction.
The earth does in fact slow down, but that happens really slowly, like 1 second per 100 million years or so, but that happens due to tidal forces.

So if Earth is in a vacuum then it follows that all space craft are in a vacuum. So please explain how they can fire up engines and thrusters in a vacuum? I believe you need oxygen of some sort. So your argument does not stack up and neither does an argument for space travel. Physics!!! Try looking into it

Since I mentioned this above...

For me, "common sense" would suggest that THE first step in demonstrating "proof of concept" - "life can come from non-life", would be to take a living cell, selectively kill it (so you can revive it "easily"), then revive it. Viola! Life from non-life in its simplest form. The cell, alive a short while beforehand, has all the physical things it needs to work ("live"). If "life" is a spiritual quantity (Biblically the breath of God), this will not be possible unless you can instill the cell with some kind of spiritual essence. If scientists can not even revive a cell that was alive a short while earlier, why bother with step two - creating a cell from scratch THEN trying to make it live?

synthetic live has been created in lab conditions, syn3.0 is one example, one of the most basic forms of live having just enough processing power to reproduce and keep itself fed. With genes numbering in the hundreds.
http://gizmodo.com/mad-scientists-created-synthetic-bacteria-with-only-473-1766686722

BTW, if you wonder what this has to do with the OP (Earth spinning), if the Earth is only ~6000 yrs old, with its mass, it probably would not slow down much.

The Earth is indeed de-spining, but its not for what you think. Since the atmosphere is moving at the same speed as the Earth, and winds and other fluctuations more or less average themselves, the despin is minimal. The actual major agents in day length fluctuation are the Moon's escape, and the glacial rebound.
Due to the tidal effect between the Moon and the Earth, the Moon is slowly gaining speed, and therefore getting farther away from the Earth. Due to the law of conservation of angular momentum, it's obvious that speed must be gained from somewhere. That somewhere is Earth's rotation.
During the Ice Age, the Earth's high latitudes where covered in ice. This ice caused a slight depression in the tectonic plates, that slightly deformed the shape of the Earth. The mantle is still recovering the original shape, with a net effect of an increase of moment of inertia, causing the Earth to despin (This is similar to how ice skaters can spin really fast by stretching, then slow down by spreading).
But take into account that this despin is MINIMAL. We are talking miliseconds a year. 620 million years ago, a day lasted 21.9 hours.

Quote from: Jadyyn on June 03, 2016, 04:47:13 AM

Since I mentioned this above...

For me, "common sense" would suggest that THE first step in demonstrating "proof of concept" - "life can come from non-life", would be to take a living cell, selectively kill it (so you can revive it "easily"), then revive it. Viola! Life from non-life in its simplest form. The cell, alive a short while beforehand, has all the physical things it needs to work ("live"). If "life" is a spiritual quantity (Biblically the breath of God), this will not be possible unless you can instill the cell with some kind of spiritual essence. If scientists can not even revive a cell that was alive a short while earlier, why bother with step two - creating a cell from scratch THEN trying to make it live?

synthetic live has been created in lab conditions, syn3.0 is one example, one of the most basic forms of live having just enough processing power to reproduce and keep itself fed. With genes numbering in the hundreds.
http://gizmodo.com/mad-scientists-created-synthetic-bacteria-with-only-473-1766686722

BTW, if you wonder what this has to do with the OP (Earth spinning), if the Earth is only ~6000 yrs old, with its mass, it probably would not slow down much.

The experiment proved that genomes can be designed in a computer, then chemically created in the lab and transplanted into a recipient cell, and that these cells retain their capacity for self-replication.

Everything was created last Thursday.  All your memories, all videos, everything came into being last Thursday. 

Thank you last Thursday God for creating me and my stuff.

I can prove it was 42 years ago, well more or less! 

Quote from: Lowezar on May 27, 2016, 04:30:17 PM

Incomplete vacuum is having negligible effect on Earth rotation, it just doesn't create enough friction. Though the Earth's spin IS actually slowing down. Rotational period is increasing by about 1.7 milliseconds per century due to tidal friction with the Moon.

How can we have friction with the moon when we're not touching the moon?

Quote from: Blue_Moon on May 27, 2016, 04:37:58 PM

Tidal forces, due to gravity.  Same thing that causes ocean tides.

gravity doesnt exist

I can prove it was 42 years ago, well more or less! 

So please explain how they can fire up engines and thrusters in a vacuum? I believe you need oxygen of some sort.