Explain please

[This_person]

Yet you espouse the theory of Abiogensis of Oil :shrug:

There's a lot more science to oil not being a fossil fuel than there is to life soup.

However, we're not discussing any side parts here. We're talking about where the scientific method is to abiogenesis, where it is to evolution from the point of view of fungi/sponge/human.

My contention is that there is absolutely no scientific method to this - that it holds no more scientific water than creationism.

Whenever I ask for a repeatable test that demonstrates even a possibility that humans could have evolved from fungi, from sponges, people tend to get sidetracked with other issues - the Bible, oil, pastors, douche water, etc., etc. If there actually were any scientific method to abiogenesis, or humans from fungi/sponges, one of you would certainly just point me to it and say "see, loon, here it is."

But, you don't.

You twist the subject, change the argument, adjust the rhetoric to attempt to squirm out of the issue. You all tell me "I" don't get evolution, until I post numerous scientific sources that demonstrates I get the explaination better than you do. Once shown exactly what it is you put your faith into, you blast back with a different subject.

Typical.

 

[This_person]

No i got off the This_Person Evolution merry-go-round a long time ago. No use trying to thread a needle with boxing gloves.

I understand; it's almost impossible to make cake out of the BS of evolution/abiogenesis.

Just pointing out that you dismiss Abiogenesis of life because something out of nothing (paraphrase) doesnt make sense. Yet you support Abiogenesis of Oil, which is Oil out of nothing (paraphrase) because Fossil Fuel makes no sense.

Actually, I believe both are possible. And, both may not be true. I've stated this repeatedly.

I just look at the science behind each, and judge the likelihood of each.

Still, though, this discussion wasn't about accepting nor rejecting any particular theory. I know it's exceptionally difficult to stay on topic when your side has no valid points to make, but the topic remains whether there is scientific information available in a repeatable test (you know, the same scientific method that creationism cannot meet) for abiogenesis or evolution of humans from sponges - the working theories of science that are so often espoused as "accurate" and "science based".

Seems like your talking out of both sides

A good attempt at a pointless slam, diverting attention away from the falacies of your side of the argument. It just doesn't work, that's all.

 

[wxtornado]

Seems like your talking out of both sides

I seriously think some theists do this on purpose. They add mud to mud to make it clearer.

 

[wxtornado]

Noahs Ark is a parable.

1. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.

Everyone knows this!

Some other theists would disagree!

 

[This_person]

I seriously think some theists do this on purpose. They add mud to mud to make it clearer.

Yet, none of you have a substantive answer to the question.

It would go something like this:

This_person, why can't you read? It was reported here (link provided) that this test was performed (explaination provided), and demonstrates the possibility of this (link provided) theory. It shows it's possible, BECAUSE THEY DID IT! What don't you understand about this test?!?​

Since one hasn't been done, and since no theory works and/or can be tested in a lab, repeated by peers, etc., etc., (you know, the scientific method), you have nothing to do but make (really lame) attacks on me personally. You can't refute that abiogenesis and evolution of sponges to humans is NOT a scientific theory that meets ANY of the criteria demanded of Intelligent Design.

But, because you seem too close minded to actually allow for open discussion of more than just the psuedo-science YOU believe in, you instead ridicule and attack anyone with any other belief. You refuse to acknowledge that YOUR belief has as much science behind it as ID, yet your attack ID as though it was some stupid concept. The fact that YOUR concept is equally unproven and untested is meaningless to you, because it's YOUR faith.

That's all I'm looking for you to acknowledge.

 

[This_person]

They add mud to mud to make it clearer.

As for adding mud to mud, I've asked a simple question repeatedly. YOU turned it to the Bible, Nuck turns it to oil. You both turn it to personal attacks.

If it's so obvious, so clear, so easily attainable, POST IT. I'll stick to the subject - abiogenesis and evolution of fungi to human (as quoted repeatedly from different scientific sources as the current belief of the evolutionists) does not follow the scientific method - while you all run around and act like fools stirring up mud that has nothing to do with the subject.

 

[wxtornado]

You can't even see the confusion in your own posts, yet you expect us to humor you. I laughed.

 

[wxtornado]

Back to original topic of this thread, maybe the authors of the Bible shortened and simplified the original story of Noah's ark for maximum dramatic effect. In the original version there were three arks. The first ark carried Noah and the mammals. It landed in Turkey. The second ark carried the dinosaurs. As we all know, it did not prove seaworthy. And the third ark? It carried an ensemble of marsupials and flightless birds, and it came to rest in Australia, the one continent containing the fossils of their ancestors, like fossilized moas, kangaroos and kiwis. What are the odds?!

 

[This_person]

You can't even see the confusion in your own posts, yet you expect us to humor you. I laughed.

If you're confused by my question, tell me how and I'll try and reword for you.

 

[This_person]

Back to original topic of this thread, maybe the authors of the Bible shortened and simplified the original story of Noah's ark for maximum dramatic effect. In the original version there were three arks. The first ark carried Noah and the mammals. It landed in Turkey. The second ark carried the dinosaurs. As we all know, it did not prove seaworthy. And the third ark? It carried an ensemble of marsupials and flightless birds, and it came to rest in Australia, the one continent containing the fossils of their ancestors, like fossilized moas, kangaroos and kiwis. What are the odds?!

Or, just change the subject to 29 pages ago

 

[wxtornado]

If you're confused by my question, tell me how and I'll try and reword for you.

I already did, but you won't find it; I'm sure of it.

 

[wxtornado]

Or, just change the subject to 29 pages ago

I already did.

 

[This_person]

I already did, but you won't find it; I'm sure of it.

Last thing I saw similar to this is when you said:

The problem is, you have no understanding of what you oppose. There is a kernel of substance to what you say, but you envelope it with such nonsense, that it is lost, a peanut swimming in a sea of shat. Break out your 7th-grade Biology textbook, and then we'll talk.

At which point I demonstrated through a group of different, science leaning sources that I understood exactly what I was talking about.

Are you sure you really get the scientific method, and either abiogenesis or evolution?

 

[Nite Owl]

Noah's Ark.



The thought of it just crossed my mind and I wanted the religious explanation of how he fit all of those animals on the boat, ect ect please.

TIA

He stashed them in some religous wacko's mind...

 

[Nite Owl]

Don't forget to take into account the fact that Noah was building this incredible Ark in the middle of the desert. Anyone watching him was bound to think he was out of his mind but Noah just kept on building in accordance with God's instructions. I just thought people might be interested in that.

Since he was in the desert I'm assuming he had the lumber shipped in by Lowes, right?

 

[djenkins13]

I must say that reading this thread has THOROUGHLY confused me. (Not hard to do.) The original question was asking for the "religious explanation" for all the animals on the ark. Somehow it morphed into abiogenesis (no clue what THAT is) and the scientific theory (know THAT one... woohoo for me). Not being "religious," I am not sure how to answer. I am a Christian who deeply loves the Lord, worships Him to the best of my abilities, and desires to serve Him faithfully, so that in the end, I might hear those glorious words: "Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter into thy rest." But to answer the question as to MY explanation, I believe the Bible is the unerring Word of God and I accept on faith that Moses parted the Red Sea, Joshua made the sun stand still, and the flood really happened. I believe the ark was packed with animals. I don't know how God did it, but I accept it that He did because the Bible says He did. Even if there were no evidence to support it, I believe every word in the Bible. Because I know where God has brought me from and I love Him for it. And that is MY "religious" explanation. I believe the Bible. I offer no scientific proof, no Dead Sea scroll-type documentation. My explanation is that the ark was full of animals because the Bible says so.
Period.

 

[craberta]

I don't know if it happened or not. The bible was not written by God, it was written by people who claimed that it was God they were quoting. I beleive in God, but not in men. To me, the bible is like any other rule book, with cautionary tales, and explanations that were translated with parts of it ommited, and parts of it in the version approved by a man, It is a mystery that we will never know the answer to untill we die. There were once trees in what is now a desert, there are the fossils of sealife in the dessert and on the tops of the highest mountains. I think we should all get together, build an ark according to the specifications that were written by some guy in a bible, and take two of each animal and put them on it, along with all the food, and people, and send it out to sea....we are all curiouse humans after all, and we always will be.

 

[This_person]

Maybe you'll have better luck with that than we've had.

Neither side has much luck with the other.

The anti-religion side asking the paradoxical questions of religion don't work. The religion side asking scientific explaination questions of athiests doesn't work.

We each put our faith into our unproven beliefs, some of the people more close minded than the others.

 

[jayboy]

Neither side has much luck with the other.

The anti-religion side asking the paradoxical questions of religion don't work. The religion side asking scientific explaination questions of athiests doesn't work.

We each put our faith into our unproven beliefs, some of the people more close minded than the others.

Who really cares? Say you "win an internet argurement", what do you really win? You can sit here and debate anything in theory and it will not change anything.

 

[PsyOps]

Who really cares? Say you "win an internet argurement", what do you really win? You can sit here and debate anything in theory and it will not change anything.

I see. No one cares about the sharing of ideas.

Could it be that sometimes, JUST SOMETIMES, people find the right words to change someone's mind about something? Or is EVERYONE stuck in their own little paradigms?