And now...

[This_person]

He's saying that YOU (yourself) can't separate the two. Evolution is not abiogenesis. How many different ways can we say it - that's why it looks like you're being obtuse on purpose.

Because I was talking about finding the source of life, not evolution. Then, he said I can't tell the difference. He claimed the scientific method could be used to determine one way of life coming into existence, but not another way, and I said....

Never mind, if you didn't get it then, you probably won't get it now.....

 

[wxtornado]

It's a pointless argument to have when both sides cannot be open minded. I'm open minded enough to say if you can show me non-created life on another planet, or show me the process by which wet rock can become life on this planet (and make it happen, and make that one cell evolve into the at least trillions of different life forms already known to exist or have existed), then I may buy a non-creationist, non-intelligent design of an answer. You have stated you flatly refuse to buy creation as a potential answer. The discussion becomes pointless when both sides are not open minded.

No, it's pointless because of what I call theistic idiocy. You continually misrepresent what you're arguing against, and it's painfully clear that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to evolution.

"cosmic magic fairy that turns muck into life"

"the process by which wet rock can become life"

....and on an on. I don't know of any science that claims life from a wet rock, and you have every right to believe this silliness (do they teach you this in church?). But you certainly don't have the right to be taken seriously.

 

[This_person]

No, it's pointless because of what I call theistic idiocy. You continually misrepresent what you're arguing against, and it's painfully clear that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to evolution.

Are you saying that people misrepresenting your side, and then belittling your belief with that misrepresentation, is not a fair discussion technique? Huh, imagine that.

I notice you don't dispute your close-mindedness, though.

"the process by which wet rock can become life"

....and on an on. I don't know of any science that claims life from a wet rock, and you have every right to believe this silliness (do they teach you this in church?). But you certainly don't have the right to be taken seriously.

No, that wasn't taught in church, it's a rewording of what was taught in school. Other theories weren't allowed in school, but church pretty much allows any teachings to be discussed. We call it "inclusion".

 

[tommyjones]

Because I was talking about finding the source of life, not evolution. Then, he said I can't tell the difference. He claimed the scientific method could be used to determine one way of life coming into existence, but not another way, and I said....

Never mind, if you didn't get it then, you probably won't get it now.....

no, what i was saying is that YOU can't seem to separate origin of life from evolution.
I have stayed away from the origins of life, or any proof of those theories

 

[This_person]

no, what i was saying is that YOU can't seem to separate origin of life from evolution.
I have stayed away from the origins of life, or any proof of those theories

But, I wasn't talking about evolution. I was talking about the scientific method determining intelligent design. What I said was:

Instead of repeatedly attacking my ability to understand the scientific method, tell me what part of determining the method that life was created via a being is not potentially provable via a scientific method. Without saying the word religion, because I'm not talking about proving religion correct. I'm talking about proving the method life was created.

No where in there did I even mention evolution, or a process similar. I know you're trying to avoid discussing something for which you have no answer, but I was trying to engage you in a more open minded thought process.

 

[tommyjones]

But, I wasn't talking about evolution. I was talking about the scientific method determining intelligent design. What I said was:No where in there did I even mention evolution, or a process similar. I know you're trying to avoid discussing something for which you have no answer, but I was trying to engage you in a more open minded thought process.

WE were discussing evolution, YOU kept bringing creation into it.

and i have NO PROBLEM saying i dont know about creation or the after life. I am not the one claiming some mystical book of stories explains EVERYTHING that we dont understand, eventhough it was written by less educated men then walk the earth today.

 

[wxtornado]

No, that wasn't taught in church, it's a rewording of what was taught in school.

Whatever school you went to, I hope it's now a parking lot!

 

[This_person]

Whatever school you went to, I hope it's now a parking lot!

Then explain it better. The earth was a lifeless rock and water and gasses, then there was life. What part am I missing?

 

[This_person]

WE were discussing evolution, YOU kept bringing creation into it.

and i have NO PROBLEM saying i dont know about creation or the after life. I am not the one claiming some mystical book of stories explains EVERYTHING that we dont understand, eventhough it was written by less educated men then walk the earth today.

We were discussing the shortcomings you feel I have in understanding scientific method, and I was questioning why that method could not be used to prove something occurred as the result of a being's action.

Keep up. Get your head out of one subject, and realize we're talking about more than one thing at a time.

 

[tommyjones]

We were discussing the shortcomings you feel I have in understanding scientific method, and I was questioning why that method could not be used to prove something occurred as the result of a being's action.

Keep up. Get your head out of one subject, and realize we're talking about more than one thing at a time.

we were discussing the shortcomings you have in understanding the scientific method BECAUSE you cant separate the two concepts of evolution and creation.
there really isn't anything to keep up with

 

[This_person]

we were discussing the shortcomings you have in understanding the scientific method BECAUSE you cant separate the two concepts of evolution and creation.
there really isn't anything to keep up with

Re-read the post, and tell me where I brought up evolution.

It's okay that you can't win this argument. I can't either. I just can't admit it. I'm willing to admit there are flaws on both sides. You can't admit creation is a possibility, and that's what keeps you fighting, even though you have no reasonable chance of winning. You're wrong, because you can't admit there is more than one possible answer to things.

Evolution has provided nothing on humans except that nutrition and medicine (technological advances) have made us taller, stronger, live longer, and have more toys. Outside of that, there is nothing evolution has provided towards humans. In other species, it probably exists, as "proven" through unrepeatable tests.

Where life came from in the first place (note the subject shift) is the only real disagreement of substance we have. I have faith that it wasn't just a random act of cosmic magic, but designed and implemented by a Creator. You think we're a gross mutation of a single cell with no clue as to how that could have happened, and you're okay with that. I'm okay with you thinking that too. I just don't need for you to tell me mine is a fairy tale any more than you need me to tell you that about yours (well, you don't even have a fairy tale, just a question mark - what an inquiring mind you have! ).

 

[tommyjones]

Re-read the post, and tell me where I brought up evolution.

It's okay that you can't win this argument. I can't either. I just can't admit it. I'm willing to admit there are flaws on both sides. You can't admit creation is a possibility, and that's what keeps you fighting, even though you have no reasonable chance of winning. You're wrong, because you can't admit there is more than one possible answer to things.

Evolution has provided nothing on humans except that nutrition and medicine (technological advances) have made us taller, stronger, live longer, and have more toys. Outside of that, there is nothing evolution has provided towards humans. In other species, it probably exists, as "proven" through unrepeatable tests.

Where life came from in the first place (note the subject shift) is the only real disagreement of substance we have. I have faith that it wasn't just a random act of cosmic magic, but designed and implemented by a Creator. You think we're a gross mutation of a single cell with no clue as to how that could have happened, and you're okay with that. I'm okay with you thinking that too. I just don't need for you to tell me mine is a fairy tale any more than you need me to tell you that about yours (well, you don't even have a fairy tale, just a question mark - what an inquiring mind you have! ).

Its ok that you dont understand science.

keep holding on to those rediculous stories, they have all lifes answers

bwhahahahaha

back to ignoring your one track azz

 

[This_person]

Its ok that you dont understand science.

keep holding on to those rediculous stories, they have all lifes answers

bwhahahahaha

back to ignoring your one track azz

I seem to have a much better understanding than you, for you haven't accurately refuted a single claim of mine.

 

[wxtornado]

I have faith that it wasn't just a random act of cosmic magic, but designed and implemented by a Creator.

And I'll be willing to bet the house that you exempt this Creator from the very rules you use to measure any other possiblity, right?

"Random act of cosmic magic" - ha, must have been a Creator! Too complicated to turn wet green slime rocks into multicellular life, ergo God did it!

Thats fine, but let's not stop there? Surely you hold the same test to your Creator, so.................who created the Creator?

 

[wxtornado]

I seem to have a much better understanding than you, for you haven't accurately refuted a single claim of mine.

No offense, but your "claims" have been refuted long ago, and quite frankly, I have no idea what you're trying to say half of the time becuase I think you try to confuse things on purpose.

 

[tommyjones]

And I'll be willing to bet the house that you exempt this Creator from the very rules you use to measure any other possiblity, right?

"Random act of cosmic magic" - ha, must have been a Creator! Too complicated to turn wet green slime rocks into multicellular life, ergo God did it!

Thats fine, but let's not stop there? Surely you hold the same test to your Creator, so.................who created the Creator?

act of cosic magic, what do you call a guy who lives in space making EVERYHTING we know from his imagination? thats what i would call an act of cosmic magic.

 

[This_person]

And I'll be willing to bet the house that you exempt this Creator from the very rules you use to measure any other possiblity, right?

"Random act of cosmic magic" - ha, must have been a Creator! Too complicated to turn wet green slime rocks into multicellular life, ergo God did it!

Thats fine, but let's not stop there? Surely you hold the same test to your Creator, so.................who created the Creator?

I take the same approach science does to this. He always is and always was, just like science believes the universe has been.

No, my whole point, if you'd have been reading objectively, is that I believe my Creator (and yours, BTW) can be held to the same standards of scientific determination as a lack of that Creator can. Sort of the foundation of what I've been saying, I'm surprised you missed it.

I never said too complicated. I said I personally view it as improbable. We have millions of examples of it NOT happening all around us, measurable in many distint ways. Who knows, we may create life on other planets with our deep space launches, with something that can survive such a journey living or having it's chemical makeup being on the craft. Maybe that's how we got here. But, then, just as you did, the question reverts to "what about before that?" Where did the life that magically appeared here come from, and how did that life evolve, and how did that life get started in the first place (note, Tommy, the two distinct questions regarding evolution and life formation)? And, before that? Just as you question where a creator may have come from, I question where the universe came from without a creator. And, you know which one of us has an answer?

 

[This_person]

No offense, but your "claims" have been refuted long ago, and quite frankly, I have no idea what you're trying to say half of the time becuase I think you try to confuse things on purpose.

Ignored, not refuted, there's a difference.

 

[This_person]

act of cosic magic, what do you call a guy who lives in space making EVERYHTING we know from his imagination? thats what i would call an act of cosmic magic.

I call Him a creator, or an intelligent designer.

What do you call a wet rock becoming life? I call that smoking too much weed.

 

[tommyjones]

I take the same approach science does to this. He always is and always was, just like science believes the universe has been.

No, my whole point, if you'd have been reading objectively, is that I believe my Creator (and yours, BTW) can be held to the same standards of scientific determination as a lack of that Creator can. Sort of the foundation of what I've been saying, I'm surprised you missed it.

I never said too complicated. I said I personally view it as improbable. We have millions of examples of it NOT happening all around us, measurable in many distint ways. Who knows, we may create life on other planets with our deep space launches, with something that can survive such a journey living or having it's chemical makeup being on the craft. Maybe that's how we got here. But, then, just as you did, the question reverts to "what about before that?" Where did the life that magically appeared here come from, and how did that life evolve, and how did that life get started in the first place (note, Tommy, the two distinct questions regarding evolution and life formation)? And, before that? Just as you question where a creator may have come from, I question where the universe came from without a creator. And, you know which one of us has an answer?

neither, we claim to not know.
you make yorself feel good by believeing a fairy tale that has NO basis in reality or logic.