Fossil evidence in WA suggests microbial life evolved in ponds on land

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: peter vlar

"Papers" written under the assumption that evolution is true is not objective fact. Its simply speculative data... for evolutionists by evolutionists

Its like astrologers writing paper about planets affecting peoples lives. It's useless because the assumption that planets affect peoples lives is completely bogus to begin with.

Then it will be easy for you to point out the methodological flaws in said paper.

Or have you not even read it?

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: peter vlar

I don't need to read papers written under the false assumption that evolution is true.

So you're basically dismissing a scientific paper out of hand that you haven't even read?

Says all we need to know about your intellectual honesty.

Your opinion pertaining to this paper: null and void.

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: puzzlesphere

(of the hundreds of thousands of articles that support evolution

The problem is that all those papers were written under the assumption that evolution is true.

The problem is that you haven't even read the paper yet you feel the need to share your ignorant thoughts on it.

What's this website's motto? That's right: Deny Ignorance.

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: peter vlar

I don't need to read papers written under the false assumption that evolution is true

As I suspected, you are willfully ignorant and not only have no clue what you're talking about, you have no interest in even attempting to educate yourself. That's too bad. See, if you bothered to educate yourself, you would realize that aren't written to prove evolution. Not are the operating under any false assumptions. All they are doing is showing you the methodology used to collect information, the analysis of that data and the conclusions those particular researchers reached.

Claiming a premise is wrong with out being able to dispute it because you refuse to read the paper involved is one of the most blatantly ignorant things I've seen on ATS in quite awhile. It's people like you who make all evolutio n deniers look dumb.

Don't worry, you can cling on to those "papers" as if they are your holy scriptures all you want.

I don't "cling" to anything. As an Anthropologist, I've had to defend my work and likewise, have rebutted the work of others if I believed I could show errors in either methodology or interpretation. That's how the process actually works. You do the research, analyze your results, publish your conclusions. Then others look at how you did the work, what the end result was, how and why you got that result. There is nothing sacred or gospel like about science or published literature and research.

But then you would have to want to actually understand the subject you attempt to falsify. You can't claim something is false when the entire scope of your knowledge on the topic is 100% non existent. It's pathetic and does nothing but prove you haven't got a clue what you're talking about because you haven't actually disputed or attempted to falsify any aspects of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis Anyone.

Everyone ad anyone is welcome to attempt to falsify a hypothesis or theory or parts thereof. All you need to do is demonstrate evidence to support your research. It's happened several times in recent years alone. Your own desire to remain intellectually stymied also means that you haven't bothered to understand that science is not some static cult of personality controlled by some international mastermind who determines what we are to report to the public at large.

So if you are capable of doing so, please articulate why exactly you believe evolution is falsifiable. I'm happy to discuss the topic if you can actually discuss it and refrain from ad hominem fallacy

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: peter vlar

I don't need to read papers written under the false assumption that evolution is true.

So you're basically dismissing a scientific paper out of hand that you haven't even read?

Says all we need to know about your intellectual honesty.

Your opinion pertaining to this paper: null and void.

Its not a "scientific" paper because evolution = nonsensical assumption

I don't need to read nonsense written under a nonsensical assumption to be able to disprove said nonsense

That said you may cling on to nonsensical papers like its your holy book

Who am I to judge?

a reply to: CaptainBeno

"Life tends to flourish in a shallow warm environment as opposed to deeper colder habitats."

Truth is through we don't really know what constitutes life, especially so in the deep past, so as to speculate as to whether or not it could/would thrive in an environment like the one suggested or have emerged in deeper colder habitats is rather unknowable.

If life did develop/evolve under such conditions, it may not have received the same protection from solar radiation that it may have done so down at the deeper regions of our planet.

End of the day short of developing some form of time travel we really will never know how life managed to emerge or was somehow transported to our world simply down to the vast time period in question and that our planet has reshaped its self via geological activity time after time.

a reply to: firefromabove

What a staggering display of willful ignorance.

Thank you for being real world example of the absurdity of creationist anti intellectual thinking for all to see.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: firefromabove
To suggest the organisms now even remotely resemble the ones of the past is the insanity. They don't.

Swap "insanity" ("insane") with "stupid" in my comment below and see my mention of the snowball effect.

Between brackets is mine:

originally posted by: peter vlar
... mean that you don't believe in Biplogy, Chemistry, Physics, Genetics, Geology, the entire field of Medicine (which is entirely nased on biology) and literally every single scientific discipline studied on earth.

The zeal is strong in this one. It's just hilarious though, it's soooo over the top. What can one say...

"every single scientific discipline" ever studied? A wise neurosurgeon once said:

Doctors don’t study evolution. Doctors never study it in medical school, and they never use evolutionary biology in their practice. There are no courses in medical school on evolution. There are no ‘professors of evolution’ in medical schools. There are no departments of evolutionary biology in medical schools.
If you needed treatment for a brain tumor, your medical team would include a physicist (who designed the MRI that diagnosed your tumor), a chemist and a pharmacologist (who made the medicine to treat you), an engineer and an anesthesiologist (who designed and used the machine that give you anesthesia), a neurosurgeon (who did the surgery to remove your tumor), a pathologist (who studied the tumor under a microscope and determined what type of tumor it was), and nurses and oncologists (who help you recover and help make sure the tumor doesn’t come back). There would be no evolutionary biologists on your team.
I am a professor of neurosurgery, I work and teach at a medical school, I do brain research, and in 20 years I’ve performed over 4000 brain operations. I never use evolutionary biology in my work. Would I be a better surgeon if I assumed that the brain arose by random events? Of course not. Doctors are detectives. We look for patterns, and in the human body, patterns look very much like they were designed. Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design. That’s why most doctors–nearly two-thirds according to national polls–don’t believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection. Most doctors don’t accept evolutionary biology as an adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of life.
I do use many kinds of science related to changes in organisms over time. Genetics is very important, as are population biology and microbiology. But evolutionary biology itself, as distinct from these scientific fields, contributes nothing to modern medicine.
Without using evolutionary theory, doctors and scientists have discovered vaccines (Jenner, in the 18th century, before Darwin was born), discovered that germs cause infectious diseases (Pasteur, in the 19th century, who ignored Darwin), discovered genes (Mendel, in the 19th century, who was a priest and not a supporter of Darwin’s theory), discovered antibiotics, and unraveled the secrets of the genetic code (the key to these discoveries was the discovery of the apparent design in the DNA double helix). Heart, liver, and kidney transplants, new treatments for cancer and heart disease, and a host of life-saving advances in medicine have been developed without input from evolutionary biologists. No Nobel prize in medicine has ever been awarded for work in evolutionary biology. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that the only contribution evolution has made to modern medicine is to take it down the horrific road of eugenics, which brought forced sterilization and bodily harm to many thousands of Americans in the early 1900s. That’s a contribution which has brought shame–not advance–to the medical field.
So ‘Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?’ I wouldn’t. Evolutionary biology isn’t important to modern medicine. That answer won’t win the ‘Alliance for Science’ prize. It’s just the truth.
Michael Egnor, M.D.

The quotation at the start of this comment is the fancy version of:

Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.
...
Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.
..
They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right ... one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.
...

Sources: The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000 and Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! Awake!—2000

Especially the reverse appeal to pride by painting a picture on others that don't agree or see things their way, they're supposedly the stupid ones, if you're with us, you are one of the smart ones that do not qualify under the description quoted at the beginning of this comment—so they imply (without spelling it out or making it too obvious what this way of arguing is doing, copied and used by many; sometimes just showing how much they've been affected or fallen victim to the things described on the 2 pages above; that's how they now end up thinking of themselves in comparison to others who don't agree with their evolutionary philosophies or philosophical naturalism, because of the arguments they filled their minds with, the gurus they've been listening too, and those affected by them in turn, the snowball effect).

The thing about this propagandistic way of arguing and painting pictures on others is though....

They're like a jedi mind trick, they work great on some minds, they don't work on a Toydarian:

@whereislogic: lots of words, but not a peep about the paper. Perhaps you would like to point out the methodological flaws of the paper?

Ah, who am I kidding. All creationists can do is put their fingers in their ears and go "la la la can't hear you, it's wrong, it's wrong, la la la".

Page 2 and not a single naysayer has read the paper. Yawn.

a reply to: GetHyped
I didn't use many words. Be more creative, this is boring and repetitive. Always the complaint about many words. That paper uses lots of words to beguile and deceive. And it nicely demonstrates other aspects of the articles and quotations that I used. Why would these quotations say a peep about the paper in the OP directly? They are a response to the argumentation people in this forum and those who wrote that paper continue to use. It's relevant as long as people make these comments in these threads.

A dime a dozen of these kind of papers. They're only of interest to the faithful. Yawn indeed.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: firefromabove

... as far as I can see, there is literally nothing you can suggest that better describes the available evidence than MES.

Even if you can suggest a viable framework for an alternative, it would still have to incorporate many aspects of MES...

'MES is my Shepherd. MES is my Rock, my Geyserite, my refuge.'

....

uhm, not. I got confused there for a moment:

a reply to: whereislogic

So you're not going to address the topic of the thread beyond "I haven't read the paper but it's wrong because it conflicts with my religious beliefs"?

Wow, really valuable discussion you're bringing to the table

Are any of the creationist science deniers going to actually address the topic of the thread?

Is this forum even moderated anymore?

a reply to: GetHyped
I probably read more of the paper than you have, but that's obviously a(n educated) guess. Never said I didn't read it or that it's wrong because it conflicts with my religious beliefs, your straw man arguments are futile. Why don't you click the link and see how many words they're using and how many of those are technical jargon to obscure the issues with their assumptions and speculations and, as per their own admittal, "re-interpretation" of the so-called evidence (otherwise they've got no story to publish or write about without that convenient re-interpretation and some of the other 'interpretations').

...evidence from...finely laminated siliceous rocks in the Dresser Formation that we interpret as hot spring-related sinter, including geyserite. Masses of barite with isopachous layering...were previously interpreted as seafloor mounds, but here are re-interpreted as the mineralized remnants of the hot spring pools or vents.

How convenient. (Source: the article shared on page 1) Btw, there's no evidence presented about life evolving from such "hot spring pools or vents" at all (or the OP's terminology "life evolved in ponds on land"), they won't even talk about that other than plugging in the word "evolution" or "evolve" every now and then in the article (towards the end of the "Discussion" section for example, just before "Methods").

They speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space. Why? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”1

1. How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.

Nothing has changed on that front. Fancy storytelling, it's all they've got. That was from my thread in this forum, a comment I never got a response to, everyone went quiet, especially the one that had just said "Can you please just post the science directly, instead of youtube videos? Animations do not prove anything, and neither do people babbling in youtube videos without references." There was a lot more science/knowledge about this subject + references posted in that comment. No sign of appreciation or gratitude for posting the science/knowledge directly with references to publications of people working in this field.

Hey at least people here aren't playing the 'evolution doesn't address the origin of life'-routine in this thread yet. People even brought up MES themselves in this thread about the origin of life. Since that's what the 'pond'-story alluded to in the thread title addresses, unlike the actual article that will hardly mention a thing about it other than making vague comments about "the evolution of early life on Earth" that don't really say much about it in terms of a detailed step by step description how these mythological events took place for which “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”

And more importantly why we should believe this storyline happened the way it is claimed to might have happened that way (as if it's a logical possibility and more, even presented as "most likely" sometimes). Reasonable evidence, not so-called evidence conveniently interpreted to fit a specific preferred storyline.

a reply to: whereislogic

Quote the actual paper please and point out the specific methodological flaws. Not your misrepresentation of a news article.

How many times do I have to ask?

Man created from recycled organic living soil. Yup.

Your intestines are an inside-out root folded up inside you. Your poop is your soil. Microbeasties break down natural food into usable states.


Without natural food, without Microbeasties, the plant will not express its unique self, will not reach its full potential. Will be chemically dependent and become immune deficient. Will be defensive and eager to reproduce before death, which it senses is always nearby when fed synthetic nutritions in absorbable state (skipping the soil-microbeastie-root relationship)

a reply to: GetHyped
I used Peter Vlar's link to the full paper for my quotation. And I was the first and still only one in this thread to do so (as per usual on ATS).

Since the article doesn't go into the type of details about the phrase "life evolved in ponds on land" as I discussed earlier, there doesn't seem to be much point in discussing the paper in relation to the thread title and the topics discussed by people in this thread (that main topic then being life evolving in ponds on land or as Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz phrased it: "the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup"; not someone's interpretations and re-interpretations of rock formations or whether or not something in those rock formations or layers presents evidence for the existence of life on earth at a certain point in history, which doesn't tell us much about how that 'life' got there if that interpretation is even correct, without error/certain/conclusive/true/factual; which it seems not to be claimed to be).

a reply to: firefromabove

Its not a "scientific" paper because evolution = nonsensical assumption I don't need to read nonsense written under a nonsensical assumption to be able to disprove said nonsense That said you may cling on to nonsensical papers like its your holy book Who am I to judge?

You made a statement: "evolution = nonsensical assumption". Now prove it. You chose not to read the paper because in your opinion it was "nonsensical". How does one come to that conclusion without reading the content?

The science of evolution is evidence-based. Your opinion of evolution is not. Get over it.