Question about probabilities and the conditions of life

By "hostile" to do you mean "Bible believing"??

Why be so afraid of Bible Believing Christians UTEOTW??!!

And for SURE - why should your own peeps not be helping you when you have dug a hole so deep on the examples I listed above that they would not help you out of it!! That to me is unconscionable on their part!!

It is my claim that they would not have blundered off that 52 card failure as you did! At least not ALL of them!

It is my claim that not ALL of them would have blundered into that utter failure of yours where you had to claim that "ALL WRONG" and "NEVER happened in nature" and "LAMENTABLE that it was still in print" is "YES but nothing FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG with it"!!

How in the world you could have let yourself get so twisted around your wrenched and twisted defense of atheist darwinism "at all costs" on that one is -- a good example for the record!!

Why did they not come to your aid and prompt you to get out of you tailspin!!??

I say shame on the ones that KNEW these to be gross blunders and yet did not help you climb out of these ditches of your own digging!

In Christ,

Bob

 

More of the same from you Bob? Why should it be any surprise.

I have thoroughly refuted all of your claims multiple times. I have exposed them for the fallacies, distortions and plagiarism that they are. Yet you keep coming back to them without ever really addressing my posts that refute your claims. Even if you pretend to answer, you only answer a strawman version, leaving my actual argument standing tall and unharmed, or you simply ignore the inconvenient parts that you are unable to deal with.

No, Bob, you are perfectly content to stick to you scripted, fictional rants and then to pretend that you have answered me and to pretend that you have refuted me.

For example, you give us the perfect case yourself.

I bet if I were to search on your name and Patterson that I would find at least a hundred posts from you in the last few months that mention Patterson.

And here you are claiming falsely how you have refuted my claims of you quoting Patterson out of context.

Let's review.

Patterson wrote a paragraph.

Sunderland quoted part of that paragraph and made some interpretive claims.

Patterson was asked about the claims in a letter.

Patterson responds by giving the rest of the paragraph to complete the quote. He then says that the second part complements what he was saying in the first part and proves that the whole passage meant the opposite of what Sunderland was claiming it meant. Patterson also says that an alternate interpretation presented by the letter writer is the correct one.

Bob comes along and quotes the second part of the paragraph, complete with "as quoted by Sunderland," and gives us the same interpretation as Sunderland did for the first half. I correct Bob by giving him the correct interpretation, one which happens to be the same as the letter writer.

Bob denies such. So I produce the letter.

Now Patterson says that the second half confirms and complements the first half. In other words, they mean the same thing.

But Bob continuously tries to tell us that Patterson is unable to correctly interpret Patterson and that Bob can do it better. Bob then tries to tell us that the second half of the paragraph really means the opposite of what Patterson says that first half means.

Do you now see why I tire of beating my head against the wall with you?

There could not be a clearer cut case of out of context quote mining. We have the author himself using the exact same quote as Bob and telling us that the interpretation Bob gives is "wrong" and the one I give is "correct."

And yet Bob soldiers on. Without a shred of evidence or logic. Bob just denies everything and sticks to his delusional world where a direct statement from the author contradicting you need not apply if you don't want it to do so.

This is the kind of nonsensical and irrational stuff that you repeat over and over.

And never anything new.

 

Well here is your chance. You have hinted around at banded iron and basement rock without ever really making a point or even being clear in where you were going. Your last statement seems to indicate that this was a deliberate debating ploy. Seems strange to me to attempt debate by purposely being vague and unclear. But when you have no facts on your side, I suppose that it is all you can do.

So let's put things into perspective. I had asserted that the early atmosphere was reducing and only later became oxidizing. You disagreed and made your cryptic reference to banded iron.

So let's review and expand my line of reasoning.

In the oldest rocks, up to about 2.5 billion years ago, we find materials that formed under anoxic conditions showing that the atmosphere contained very little to no free oxygen. What are some of these materials?

Well, let's look at one, first, because I think that I see a strawman coming from you on this one. Prior to the large banded iron formation formed 2 - 2.5 billion years ago, there are other iron formations. But these formations contain incompletely oxidized iron which again confirms my assertions. If the atmosphere were oxidizing, they would have been completely oxidized as the later large iron deposits were.

We have also discussed how uraninite is found in thick deposits in formations older than 2.5 billion years of age. Uraninite can only form such deposits in anoxic conditions.

We also discussed similar deposits of pyrite, which can only form under anoxic conditions. There is an important detail to add. Some of the deposits of pyrite show signs of weathering, meaning that they spent time exposed at the surface. If conditions had been oxic, they would have oxidized.

And let's add another. Paleosols from before 2.5 billion years old that contain cerium have it in an unoxidized form. It would be impossible to have soil in an oxidizing atmosphere in which the cerium did not also oxidize.

Finally, the great banded iron formations themselves of 2 - 2.5 billion years old. These bands of iron, in contrast to the earlier bands of iron, are completely oxidized and represent the time when life evolved that gave off oxygen. The new oxygen in the water oxidized the dissolved, reduced iron. Iron oxide is basically insoluable so it precipitated out.

So Bob, tell us what banded iron formations of which you speak.

Tell us what their oxidation state is, it is important.

Tell us what you mean by basement rock. Tell us what area this basement rock is from.

Tell us where those great beds of iron came from if the atmosphere were never reducing to allow the reduced iron to dissolve in the oceans.

Tell us how all these materials that can only form in anoxic conditions were able to be formed if the atmosphere were never anoxic, especially those that show signs of being at the surface for extended periods.

Let's hear it Bob. We have heard hints, rumors and allegations that you can build a case using banded iron that there was never a period with a reducing atmosphere. Well, do it. And deal with all the counter evidence I have already presented.

Oh, and I have one more thing for you. References. Please try to have some peer reviewed, published references.

Murakami, T., Utsinomiya, S., Imazu, Y. and Prasad, N. (2001). "Direct evidence of late Archean to early Proterozoic anoxic atmosphere from a product of 2.5 Ga old weathering." Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 184(2): 523-528.

Rasmussen, B. and Buick, R. (1999). "Redox state of the Archean atmosphere: Evidence from detrital heavy minerals in ca. 3250-2750 Ma sandstones from the Pilbara Craton, Australia." Geology, 27(2): 115-118.

 

Nope - you imagine success each time you experience utter failure.

BUT THEN you seem to KNOW where your argument still has some life in it (like the Banded Iron and Reptile topics) as opposed to completely hammered to dust (as in your failed 52 card blunder, your protein-LESS abiogenesis, your "NOTHING WRONG when something is just merely ALL WRONG", your denial of Talk Origins and the Patterson letter, your DENIAL of Romans 1...etc)

Each time you CLAIM victory over that ash heap of failure on your part then RUN to the banded Iron and reptile thread "hopefully" you SHOW your true nature and true understanding of your own gross glaring blunders!

Try doing something SUBSTANTIVE to rescue one of these failed arguments of yours!!

 

I bet if I were to search on your name and Patterson that I would find at least a hundred posts from you in the last few months that mention Patterson.
[/quote]

Yep - including the part where I show the FULL QUOTE from TALK ORIGINs totally debunking your wild tale!

Try making sense when you try to rescue one of your failed arguments.

Let's actually PUT your response on the THREAD that is DEDICATED to it - so that your blunder stands out in the SAME living color where the Talk Origins post has ALREADY SHOWN you to fail -

Instead of derailing this thread --

That way you have an ENTIRE THREAD to make your case.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I bet if I were to search on your name and Patterson that I would find at least a hundred posts from you in the last few months that mention Patterson.
[/quote]

Yep - including the part where I show the FULL QUOTE from TALK ORIGINs totally debunking your wild tale!

Try making sense when you try to rescue one of your failed arguments.

Let's actually PUT your response on the THREAD that is DEDICATED to it - so that your blunder stands out in the SAME living color where the Talk Origins post has ALREADY SHOWN you to fail -

Instead of derailing this thread --

That way you have an ENTIRE THREAD to make your case.

In Christ,

Bob

 

There is nothing for me to do. You have only attacked strawman versions of my arguments if you have even addressed them at all.

Look, you and I both know where things stand. There have been dozens of posts back and forth on the same narrow set of topics. You think that you have hit upon some winning topics. You think that you have posted things to which I have no good response. YOu think that you have me on the run.

I, of course, think that opposite. I have pointed out where your arguments are full of fallacies and distortions. I have pointed out flaws that you cannot address. I think that I have made many factual posts to which you have no factual response and that you have utterly failed to make anything like a convincing argument.

Obviously, we are not going to come to terms and argree as to the outcome. I have no interest in repeating these same things several dozen more times. IT will just be repeats and it is obvious that neither of us can grasp what the other is saying.

But ... Let's interupt this with a quote from you.

This is where I really have you on the run.

My primary assertion concerning your arguments is that you hide behind a wall of smoke and mirrors uttering a script you have prepared that combines plargiarism with fallacies and lies and that you have no ability to argue the facts. Not because of yourself, but because there are no facts to support YEism.

So let's look.

You continue to harp on the Patterson thing. It is such a wonderful example of your failed strategy. It basically boils down to you telling us that we cannot accept what Patterson says he meant and that we must instead accept what you say that he meant. But since the quote does sound questionable when removed from the context and intent of the author, as do all "good" quote mines, you can have endless fun spinning your smoke and hoping that no one notices that you are going directly against what the author says he meant.

But look what happens when you are asked to show facts.

Where have you gone since YOU first posted about genetically testing reptiles and about banded iron?

YOU brought the subjects up. YOU. YOU. YOU.

But when it became so easy to show that your facts where not in order, you dropped them like hot potatoes, trying to return to your script. WIth your script, you can choose the subject and you choose ones where your fallacies and deceptions are not so obvious, at least not to some.

You thought that you had winning facts with the genetics and with the banded iron.

But there is too much factual evidence against you.

Furthermore, I know your script. I know that you rely heavily on strawmen. SO in both cases, I have already identified the likely strawmen for you to use and have shown where those are not valid arguments.

In both cases, there is too much in play for you to make a counter. So you retreat and hope no one notices.

Well, I have noticed. As I said, on the other topics, we have reached the point where we are both repeating ourdelves over and over and both claiming victory.

Here are two new subjects of your own choosing. But since they involve facts that are not so easily spun, you flee. You try to get back to the comfort of your script.

Well I have told you that I have thoroughly defeated your script and I am not interested in discussing those topics any more. All that needs to be said has been said.

But here are new topics. Topics you chose. Topics where we can see if you can fight a battle on facts instead of fallacy and fiction.

Quite a few things have been identified on each topic that you must address. Are you up to it? Or will you stick to the comfort of your fictional script?

 

Quote:Bob said
Try doing something SUBSTANTIVE to rescue one of these failed arguments of yours!!

Keep dreaming --

Actually the truth is I was HOPING you WOULD try to rescue your failed arguments listed above - instead of giving up and admitting there is nothing you can do for them so soon!

I guess you would have to START READING the threads to know about the many devastating points raised against your failed efforts so far - huh!

Why not try reading and NOT glossing over inconvenient details.

It is going to serve you better than this constant "pretending" of yours where you quote NOTHING, answer NOTHING, address NOTHING and continue to "dream" that "this is doing well Bob".

Where in the world do you learn that a vaccuous factless point as in the one above - is a "Compelling form of debate"??

Why not QUOTE - ANSWER - RESPOND - show some sign of life in your argument.

That is true - you are faking this "I did well but I can't actually bring myself to respond to the points you are raising - so will just pretend I did well anyway" - and I know it.

You are then RUNNING to some OTHER points where you DO think you have some life left in your arguments instead of trying to rescue this string of failed arguments that you have left on this board!

Indeed and you respond with confirmation of that conclusion by NOT quoting ANYTHING - by not ANSWERING the points raised - by simply "repeating yourself"

Be honest at least for one second.

Surely you can must one second's worth!!

FIND the last time you actually posted something of substance - quoting the argument raised and responding directly to it!!

Was it a MONTH ago!!??

More??!!

Surely you can be honest just for a second.

Pick the 52 card blunder, or pick the Patterson quote SHOW yourself QUOTING the points raised AND the points IN the text - SHOW yourself doing something that makes sense!

When was the last time you did it??!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

If you are still speaking of the string of failed arguments I have pointed out in your posts on this area of the board -- the 52 card blunder, the Romans 1 blunder, the Patterson blunder, the ...

Then NO you have NOT even done that! It has been a very VERY long time since you QUOTED something besides YOU to show your claims to success had any "fact" to them AT ALL!

YOU quoting YOU is a factLESS post in terms of an ANSWER to a devastating point raised against your views.

"Show your work" instead of simply glossing over all details and "arriving at the end with lots of claims and NOTHING by way of fact".

If you could be persuaded to show even a second's worth of intellectual honesty and integrity in dealing with one of these failed arguments of yours - we could have some real progress in this discussion.

Until then - you just keep "quoting you" and I keep REPEATING the points from Patterson and from the devastating case already shown to debunk your failed arguments - while I quote YOU.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That is a "given". What is NOT a given is that you have to completely hide from ALL details in your every post!!

INSTEAD you HAVE continued to simply REPEAT posts of "You quoting YOU" instead of You responding to DETAILS!

A child can see this pattern in your posts - week after week after week!

Why pretend that "this escapes you"??

The fact that you DO know where to go for life -- you see that the banded iron topic has life and the reptile discussion has life - PROVES that you know when your argument has totally bombed - as in the other lists given here!

Why must you "pretend" not to notice what every child can clearly see?

In Christ,

Bob

 

First of all - the fact that you actually retain the presence of mind to QUOTE something and then RESPOND to it -- is amazing!!

I thought you had lost all capacity for that form of communication in debate weeks ago!!

I am greatly encouraged!!

Well that is a bit premature -- but at least you are right that IF you ARE going to "have me on the run" you have to start paying attention to what is said in actual posts and RESPONDING!!

This is really wonderful UTEOTW!!

As I said - I am greatly encouraged!!

IF you BELIEVED that - you would RESPOND to the points raised instead of GLOSSING OVER THEM!!

How come this little detail keeps escaping you UTEOTW!!??

Actually this PROVES your blunder to all children reading this thread because in the Patterson example WE KEEP SEEING that Bob is QUOTING Patterson AND quoting the Talk-Origins CONTEXT for Patterson's statements while YOU quote only YOU!!

What is really condemning in that for YOU is that this Patterson example is one of YOUR OWN choosing -- yet I AM THE ONE highlighting the DETAILS and you are the one that KEEPS QUOTING YOU while glossing over all other posts EVEN when they are filled with Talk-Origins CONTENT!!

IF you have a QUOTE of ME saying that -- then POST it and stop QUOTING YOU instead - as your way of showing what I post!!

By CONTRAST I SHOW Patterson AFFIRMING the very Patterson quotes I GIVE instead of having ME quote ME -- as my form of proof!!

Why are these simple obvious facts of communication and discussion so difficult for you UTEOTW??

In Christ,

Bob

 

You admit that YOUR OWN selected example of Patterson is "a cake walk for ME"??!!!

Why should YOUR OWN selected 52 card blunder AND your own selected "Patterson Quote" be places where I WOULD DO WELL??!!

These selections of yours SHOULD be points where I run away and YOU keep dragging me back - instead ME having drag YOU back to your OWN initiatives.

Your are right about one thing - the examples where I do well are ones where the variables are all KNOWN - no place for you to hide.

On the EASY topics we quickly reach a point where YOU quote YOU - and I quote the text AND you and then SHOW where you fail instead of just "ME quoting ME" as you do.

We keep showing that contrast - over and over and over.

That much is true. Any mindless drone that would be "TOLD that you did well" instead of having to SEE you do well in those cases would simply be satisfied.

Funny - but that form of magic don't work here UTEOTW - haven't you noticed??

Yet?

You are free to "quote you" then run away as you are doing.

I will continue to quote Patterson AND talk origins AND your 52 card blunder AND your Romans 1 blunder AND your proteinLESS cell blunder AND your "ALL wrong is not actually fundamentally WRONG" blunder - AND then adding my insightful comments highlighting your errors.

Feel free to remain in quiet acceptance of those facts as you continue to gloss over and ignore them.

 

Thank you once again for proving my point. YOu do not have the ability to get out of the comfort of your fictional script.

I have already exposed the smoke and mirrors, the lies and deceptions, the fallacies and plagiarisms of you script. There is no need to rehash that no matter how many times you try and taunt me back into your game.

But look what happens when I try to drag you into a fact based discussion outside of the comfort of your fictional script.

You cannot be brought at all to discuss subjects of your own choosing.

Have you really given up? Do you really have no answer for the red beds and the reptile genetic testing thet you brought up yourself?

The genetic testing must be the worst for you since your lack of knowledge of evolution led you to post data that supports evolution.

I find it amazing that you could so strongly argue against evolution when you do not even understand it enough to avoid such a simple blunder.

How can you propse to know something is wrong when you demonstrate for us that you do not even understand its basics?

 

#1. Why are YOUR OWN initiatives on Patterson, on your 52 card blunder etc NOT "Fact based" discussions in your own mind?

#2. Why do you think it is better for me to want to go to YOUR initiatives to show YOUR blunders and BAD for you to agree to go there and then post "substantively"?? How is it you keep referencing your "OWN" initiatives as "bad places for YOU but good places for ME"??

 

You admit that YOUR OWN selected example of Patterson is "a cake walk for ME"??!!!

Why should YOUR OWN selected 52 card blunder AND your own selected "Patterson Quote" be places where I WOULD DO WELL??!!

These selections of yours SHOULD be points where I run away and YOU keep dragging me back - instead ME having drag YOU back to your OWN initiatives.

Your are right about one thing - the examples where I do well are ones where the variables are all KNOWN - no place for you to hide.

Quote:UTEOTW
Well, I have noticed. As I said, on the other topics, we have reached the point where we are both repeating ourdelves over and over and both claiming victory.


On the EASY topics we quickly reach a point where YOU quote YOU - and I quote the text AND you and then SHOW where you fail instead of just "ME quoting ME" as you do.

We keep showing that contrast - over and over and over.

 

It is "instructive" that you DO NOT call ME to your 52 card blunder thread, your patterson thread, your Romans 1 failure, your "ALL wrong is really not fundamentally wrong" thread, your "no proteins in living cells for abiogenesis" thread... INSTEAD you keep making up reasons why we SHOULD NOT go there!!!

But you do not insist that we GO there and discuss the points AS YOU DO with the Reptile thread AND to the point on banded iron.

SURELY you can SEE that??!!

(I mean seriously - is there even an ounce of intellectual honesty left in your posting?? Can you not at least admit to what is OBVIOUS to everyone??)

 

I have already discredited your ficticious script and I do not plan to be drawn into a rehashing of your lies, fallacies and plagairism.

But you brought up the banded iron yourself. Support your claim or withdraw it.

Either way, it is fun to watch you twisting on the nail you put into the wall. All your other points have been discredited and you canot even be brought to try and support this one.

Here is the issue for you.

Again.

 

Bob

Any plans to give us that banded iron story you have been saving back?

If you do, please try and address ALL of the things I have posted instead of doing your usual strawman routine where you ignore most of the important details and misrepresent those you do attempt to address.

I have laid out the various bits you must address and some of the things your response should include very clearly. Don't leave stuff out because it is too difficult for you to respond to.

I am hoping for a good discussion of oxidation states and paleosols and weathering of reduced materials at the surface without oxidizing and all the other details that have been brought up.

 

I have addressed this a zillion times. (He said to the one who merely glosses over details instead of reading and responding to them)

IF I slam that one home like I hammered your failed arguments in Romans 1, in your 52 card blunder, in your proteinLESS cells, in your "ALL wrong is still fundamentally NOTHING wrong", in your Patterson blunder etc

You would simply be AVOIDING that one like you do all the others.

I NEED that one to "stay alive" to CONTRAST your Rant-and-run tactic with THAT one!

Get it?

Yet?

I bet you are -- I am hoping for a good discussion on all your failed efforts so far -- come back to them -- some of them are your OWN IDEAS!!

And they are THE EASY STUFF because ALL variables are known!

If you can't be trusted on the easy stuff -- how much less on the topics of pure-speculation!!

 

If "ranting-and-running" were the SUBSTANCE of which "credibly discrediting" an argument - is made of , then you would be right!!

As it is you RUN and then say that in running way you have "discredited" what you flee from!

A Child can see this - so I love to keep reminding you of it.