Question about probabilities and the conditions of life

[El_Guero]

Hark! Methinks I hear a Gospel call . . .

Why not cross over to the light? Why not join truth and leave the darkness of error and failed argument after failed argument?

Is there a remote possiblity? Nay! I say is there a remote probablity that UTEOTW might cross over to the light?

mmm ... now that would take some fancy math to figure out the answer - beyond my skills.



TIC of course, one cannot cross over into the light once one has crossed over into the light.

 

[BobRyan]

I keep holding that door open to UTEOTW

 

[UTEOTW]

Patterson ENDORSES the very part of HIS OWN QUOTE that I am quoting in the thread!!

Oh, Bob, he endorses it as meaning the opposite of what you say it means.

Let's examine the facts, again.

Patterson wrote a paragraph.

Sunderland quoted a couple of sentences from that paragraph.

Bob sometimes quotes the exact same sentences and Sunderland, including adding "as quoted by Sunderland" to the end. Some times Bob quotes the next couple of sentences of the paragraph, the ones that Patterson includes in his response.

Sunderland gave an interpretation of the quote. Bob gives the same interpretation of the quote. That Bob usually quotes Patterson with "as quotes by Sunderland" supports this assumption.

Someone wrote to Patterson and asked him about the Sunderland quote and gave what he thought Patterson meant which happens to be the same interpretation that I give you for the passage.

Patterson wrote back saying that he had said that and gave the rest of the paragraph to complete the passage. So now Patterson is addressing both halves of the paragraph which you quote.

Patterson said that the the creationists interpretation is "wrong."

Patterson said that the interpretation which I have given you is "correct."

Now, how hard is that to see? Patterson himself has addressed your quote and declared the spin you try to give as "wrong."

Would you have us believe that you are better at interpreting Patterson than Patterson himself? YOu have completely deluded yourself and provide us an excellent example of the moral dangers of YEism.

 

[UTEOTW]

I said

I already told you what a basement rock is. It is the rocks that underlie the sedimentary rock of the continents. You seem to be trying to pull an equivocation fallacy where you equate the basement rock at some location to the oldest rocks anywhere. Well it is just not true.

[snip a listing of the types of formations found at various ages with the part about banded iron being found when the earth is about half its present age and preceeded by materials formed in anoxic conditions

Bob responded

That is the accusation I already made against you. You need to find your own to make against m

Uh, no. I have never said that the basement rock was the oldest.

You said that the banded iron formation in the basement rock undermined the assertion that there was an early reducing atmosphere.

If you were not trying to say that the basement rock was the oldest rocks anywhere then why did you make the statement?

Furthermore, then if you are admitting that you do not think that the basement rock is the oldest, then you have still not said anhting of relevence to refute the observation that the change in rocks from anoxic to oxic conditions supports the early reducing atmosphere.

 

[UTEOTW]

Let's make this easy for you Bob.

You quote Patterson "as quoted by Sunderland."

Patterson directly addresses the quote and proclaims the SUnderland interpretation "wrong."

Why should we not believe Patterson?

If you say it is because Patterson was not addressing your interpretation, then tell us what SUnderland's interpretation is and what yours is so we can see the difference.

Otherwise, you are telling us that you better know Patterson than Patterson.

 

[BobRyan]

Why not brave up and GO to the thread dedicated to making your point silly?

In anycase it is obvious "from the details you gloss over" that PATTERSON's correction INCLUDES the text HE prefers - and it is THAT text that I quote.

silly.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
That is the accusation I already made against you. You need to find your own to make against m

Uh, no. I have never said that the basement rock was the oldest.

Uh no!

I reported what the Smithsonian did in showing Banded Iron as an example of basement rock and you said "OH NO banded iron is not the OLDEST ROCK on the planet".

YOU made the silly assumption that basement rock must be "the oldest rock on the planet".

BTW - why are you giving your blunder here on basement rock all this air time while ignoring all your blunders on the main point of the thread?

 

[UTEOTW]

Then what was your point on mention the banded iron in basement rock?

You have not provided any evidence then to refute my claims that the banded iron formations are preceeded by formations containing materials formed under anoxic conditions.

 

[UTEOTW]

In anycase it is obvious "from the details you gloss over" that PATTERSON's correction INCLUDES the text HE prefers - and it is THAT text that I quote.

He includes the very part you quote and then says that you are "wrong."

How can there by any possible way for you to weasel out of that?

 

[BobRyan]

He includes the very part you quote and then says that you are "wrong."

How can there by any possible way for you to weasel out of that?

Because - what you just said is YOU quoting YOU instead of SHOWING that the facts IN THE LETTEr support your wild claims.

Hint: try paying ATTENTION to the letter instead of ignoring it.

Try GOING to the thread and MAKING some kind of actual point instead of making stuff up here?

 

[BobRyan]

Then what was your point on mention the banded iron in basement rock?

You have not provided any evidence then to refute my claims that the banded iron formations are preceeded by formations containing materials formed under anoxic conditions.

I was not trying to show that single celled organisms existed "BEFORE ROCKS" - though your bogus arguments so far seem to imply that you "think it".

My argument was that by the TIME wild-eyed myth-spewing atheist darwinist THINK living cells "began to spontaneously generate" - assembling themselves in critical mass to sustain life - BASEMENT rocks already existed, and the Smithsonian shows one example of that being in the form of banded iron.

You then leap off into the wild half-lucid argument that "there exist rocks older than banded iron".

Heaven only knows how you come up with your bogus arguments.

 

[UTEOTW]

Because - what you just said is YOU quoting YOU instead of SHOWING that the facts IN THE LETTEr support your wild claims.

I have quoted the letter more than once.

The letter quotes back what you have quoted. The quote then says directly that the interpretation of Sunderland, which is the same as yours, is "wrong."

Case closed. If you cannot understand that then you are indeep too deeply deluded to be reasoned with.

 

[UTEOTW]

My argument was that by the TIME wild-eyed myth-spewing atheist darwinist THINK living cells "began to spontaneously generate" - assembling themselves in critical mass to sustain life - BASEMENT rocks already existed, and the Smithsonian shows one example of that being in the form of banded iron.

You then leap off into the wild half-lucid argument that "there exist rocks older than banded iron".

I don't follow.

Are you or are you not saying that the basement rocks are the oldest?

If not, then you have done nothing to refute my statement about there being formations containing materials formed under anoxic conditions older than the banded iron formations.

If so, I have given you a chronology showing that there are older forlations. It is up to you to show that these banded iron formations are the oldest we have. Basement rock does not mean the oldest period, it means what is under the sedimentary rock of the continents.

 

[BobRyan]

Are you or are you not saying that the basement rocks are the oldest?

You are the only one so far saying that they are the oldest AS IF banded Iron CAN't be basement rock IF it is not the oldest rock on the planet.

I am saying they are every bit as old as your spontaneous generation myth would have single celled creatures.

If not, then you have done nothing to refute my statement about there being formations containing materials formed under anoxic conditions older than the banded iron formations.

Again this is where your argument takes wild leaps AS IF single celled creatures as as old as the oldest rocks according to atheist darwinists.

The fact is I don't know that atheist darwinists would be making your wild claims!

UTEOTW
It is up to you to show that these banded iron formations are the oldest we have.

Sadly - you are really far down a dark rabbit trail fashioned by "you" -

 

[BobRyan]

I have quoted the letter more than once.

The letter quotes back what you have quoted. The quote then says directly that the interpretation of Sunderland, which is the same as yours, is "wrong."

Case closed. If you cannot understand that then you are indeep too deeply deluded to be reasoned with.

I have challenged you to SHOW some actual concern for facts and detail -- you can not be persuaded to value fact EVEN when the topic is YOUR OWN chosen test case.

I have CHALLENGED you to SHOW the problem -- the problem QUOTE that Patterson and Theunissen were actually addressing. But in your usually fact-intolerant style you refused to show any value at all for facts in you wild-eyed gloss over of all key details in your OWN selected test case.

I have now posted the data you REFUSED to post -- provided by your boy Theunissen himself.

If you have even an ounce of abililty to read with comprehension your OWN selected test case and if only for a moment grasp the main details - I suggest you go there and read.

 

[UTEOTW]

I am saying they are every bit as old as your spontaneous generation myth would have single celled creatures.

Prove it.

I have shown you that there are older rocks whose composition support my assertion.

Show that they do not really exist.

 

[UTEOTW]

I have challenged you to SHOW some actual concern for facts and detail -- you can not be persuaded to value fact EVEN when the topic is YOUR OWN chosen test case.

You ignore the salient detail yourself.

Between the question and the response, Patterson addresses the whole passage.

He says your interpretation is "wrong."

Whatever distraction from this you try to make are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

 

[BobRyan]

Though you love to "tell stories" instead of paying attention to facts --

#1. Patterson never mentions "my quote" of him as being anything but correct AND preferred!

#2. YOU never show comprehension at all of the quote he IS complaining about. NOR do you show ME quoting it!

#3. You predictably can not be brough to LOOK at your own mired argument.

Obfuscation and misdirection seem to be your primary tools.

 

[UTEOTW]

So you still can't make up your mind on the banded iron. It is a tangled web you've weaved. I can understand why you would have such a hard time trying to mount a defense when your position is not grounded in reality.

Though you love to "tell stories" instead of paying attention to facts --

#1. Patterson never mentions "my quote" of him as being anything but correct AND preferred!

#2. YOU never show comprehension at all of the quote he IS complaining about. NOR do you show ME quoting it!

#3. You predictably can not be brough to LOOK at your own mired argument.

Obfuscation and misdirection seem to be your primary tools.

So that is your argument? That since you are quoting a different part of the paragraph than Sunderland that you are off the hook.

I guess that this means that you expect us to believe that Patterson contradicted himself in the same paragraph and yet chooses to use the two parts to support what he meant in each.

That is a long shot.

Patterson tells us that the Sunderalnd interpretation is "wrong" and he chooses the part you quote to show that it is "wrong."

What he calls "correct" is the interpretation that I have given you.

 

[BobRyan]

Since UTEOTW seems to be falling into "total failure" Mode --

There is NO lab "data" that supports a path for building a one celled creature!

There is NO lab "data" that tells thinking mankind that the myths and fairytales of atheist darwinists about events that CAN NOT be fabricated in the lab regarding A SINGLE celled organism -- could be remotely demonstrated WITH DATA!

Atheist darwinists BELIEVE in SPITE of the data not BECAUSE of it!

And they do so in blind service to their primary world view "There is NO God"!

Obviously.

UTEOTW's failed attempts to discredit ACTUAL sciences like stastics and probability studies - exchanged for his devoted service to the junk science religion we call atheist darwinism - are well documented on this thread.

UTEOTW's utter 52 card failure on this thread is available for all to read. Much as he might wish to hide it.

UTEOTW's failed attempts to interpret basement rock in any part of earth as the "oldest rock on the planet" is well documented here.

UTEOTW's failed attempts to INSERT his own quotes in Christian posts AS IF his inference was "data" in the post is as transparently flawed AS IS his claims that the pausity of data in support of abiogenesis is "a good thing"

UTEOTW's failed argument that the atheist darwinist confessions that that the horse series was "all wrong" and "had to be discarded" and was "a lamentable fact" for having hung around in textbooks so long -- should be blindly "revisioned and wrenched" into "YEAH but nothing fundamentally wrong with it" is also well documented by his participation in the false quotes thread.

With failure after failure mounting for UTEOTW -- how does he keep posting in that SAME model as if he is "doing a good thing"??

That UTEOTW - is the question that is going unnanswered on this thread.