From Newsgroup: talk.origins
On 11/21/2025 10:27 AM, sticks wrote:
On 11/21/2025 8:48 AM, RonO wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:00 PM, sticks wrote:
On 11/20/2025 10:43 AM, RonO wrote:
Science News claims that they used AI analytics to identify the
traces of photosynthetic life.-a 3.3 billion years is around the time >>>> that there may have only been two surviving lineages of eubacteria
and archaea both would have contained the genes for both
chemotrophic and photosynthetic life.
The last common ancestor of eubacteria and archaea supposedly
existed with these atributes 4.2 billion years ago, so if they can
find the right rocks they may be able to detect photosynthesis in
rocks that old.
Also, the original link also points to further reading at the bottom
of the article with a link that was here awhile back.
<https://phys.org/news/2025-09-scientists-potential-biosignature-
mars- astrobiologist.html>
"These minerals may have formed on the rock when ancient microbes
used chemical reactions to produce energy. But chemical reactions not
related to life can also produce these minerals under certain
conditions."
And this commendable sentence:
"Now, scientists are looking into the explanations that wouldn't
require life to form these features on the sample."
My point is, the subject of this piece, "Earth's earliest life 3.3
billion years ago revealed by faint biosignatures" is the kind of
thing I object to.-a Not the work, but the way it gets framed.
Reading the title, you would think they have found evidence of life
from 3.3 billion years ago.-a But when you dig in, they simply have
not and are continuing their work.-a One has to wonder why they
omitted the "potential" in their description in the recent article?
This is a far too common way of doing things where previous work is
cited and used to further the importance of a finding, without having
to repeat the problems.-a It's dishonest.
Your problem is that we have other evidence that life existed on this
planet over 3 billion years ago.-a They have found fossil stromatolites
like the stromatolites still formed by bacteria today in rocks over
3.4 billion years old.-a These are not just chemical traces.
Researchers are just looking for more different types of evidence for
life.-a We already have other evidence that life existed at this time.
The article notes that the chemical signatures are not the oldest
traces of life.-a It was just a different means of identifying evidence
that past life has left behind, and like I noted if they find older
sedimentary rocks they could do the same analysis.
Your problem is that both you and John seem to think I was questioning
the dating, which if you read it again you will clearly see I was not.
That is an entirely separate area of interest, but not what my reply was about at all.
Over hype of findings in news articles is commonly discussed here. They
are looking for evidence of life where they expect to find it. There is already evidence that life existed at that time. They aren't just
making junk up to claim that life existed in those rocks. They are
looking for chemical signatures that life leaves behind in the
sedimentary layers that become rock. Your objection to the over hype is noted, but your objection doesn't change the reality that you can't
accept. As I noted there is other evidence of fossil stromatolites over
3.4 billion years old. You know that you have an objection to that
reality, but your issue with this study doesn't matter about what you
can't accept.
You claim to be some type of YEC. YEC is still are the largest portion
of creationist support for the ID creationist scam. YEC have likely
been the victims of all the bait and switch ploys that the ID perps have
had to run. The ID perps sell the ID scam, but only give the rubes a
stupid obfuscation and denial switch scam that they tell the rubes has
nothing to do with creationism nor ID. The last bait and switch went
down on the West Virginia legislature, and even after the bait and
switch had gone down and the legislator had, had to remove mentioning ID
from the legislation and replace it with switch scam language, she still claimed that ID could be taught in the West Virginia public schools, and
had to have the bait and switch run on her again.
https://scienceandculture.com/2024/03/west-virginia-passes-bill-protecting-teacher-rights-to-answer-student-questions-on-scientific-theories/
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
This is the Educator's briefing packet where the ID perps claim that the Kitzmiller decision was wrong, and that even though ID was found to be
illegal to teach in Dover that it is still legal to teach the junk
elsewhere.
The Bait and Switch goes down every single time that YEC creationists
want to teach the junk in the public schools. Most of the ID perps are
OEC. Luskin claims to have gotten his PhD studying rocks around 2
billion years old. Their claim to be running a "Big Tent" scam that all
types of Biblical creationists are welcomed to attend is a lie. The Top
Six evidences for ID should tell any competent and sane person that YEC
do not want to teach the existing ID science in the public schools. The
Big Bang is already a topic that several creationist state school boards
have wanted to remove from the science standards, and Kansas succeeded
in 1999, so the YEC do not want the best evidence for ID to be
presented. Luskin is one of the authors of the Educator's briefing
packet and the guy describing how the bait and switch went down on the
West Virginia legislator with the removal of intelligent design from the legislation. He even describes why the bait and switch needed to go
down again after the legislation passed because "Unfortunately, some legislators seem to have been confused by earlier versions of the bill
and thought that the final version of this bill was about intelligent
design." Luskin had to be quoted in the news lying about the Discovery Institute not supporting teaching intelligent design in the public
schools. Luskin is coauthor of the Educator's Briefing packet.
QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
constitutional to discuss in science classrooms and it
should not be banned from schools. If a science teacher
wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have the
academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:
QUOTE:
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring
the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it
does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about
voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in
the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts
to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss
the scientific debate over design in an objective and
pedagogically appropriate manner.
END QUOTE:
The switch scam is just the same obfuscation and denial that the
scientific creationists used to use, but they do not mention the
creationist reason for the obfuscation and denial. Nearly all the rubes
drop the issue instead of bend over for the switch scam because if they
can't tell the students why they are lying to them there is no point in teaching them enough science for them to understand what they have to deny.
You really do not want to be a YEC IDiotic supporter of the ID scam.
Ron Okimoto
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2