26 Jan 14
Originally posted by humyWow! That evolution is so smart.
I think you misunderstand just a bit. People that have studied modern abiogenesis theories like I have would generally think that life cannot spontaneously appear from amino acids and this is not the way it could have happen. The currently thinking is that RNA-like molecules spontaneously formed that functioned simultaneously as both genetic and enzymatic molec ...[text shortened]... dern living cells. Only evolution could have made all that complexity that gradually came later.
26 Jan 14
Originally posted by humyFaith is believing something is inevitable without actually having seen it happen.
That is not faith but rather an inevitability. It is in the nature of science to build on both previous scientific discoveries and scientific experiments. Scientists have regularly improved on past experiments (I can give examples on request ) and there is no reason to think that they suddenly and mysterious stop doing so and make science stand still. That is b ...[text shortened]... appear to have any clue (or choose not to. I don't know which ) of what science is really about.
Originally posted by EladarNo it isn't. Example: Nobody has ever directly seen an organic molecule molecule being oxidized but is not faith that it is inevitable that this happens to organic molecules when wood burns. If it didn't, because of what science has shown about how physical chemistry woks via the evidence, we know there be no forest fires because there be no energy released to maintain the fire.
Faith is believing something is inevitable without actually having seen it happen.
So, you see, basically, thanks to science, we can know that something would be inevitable given the right conditions to make it inevitably happen even if nobody has directly witnessed it happen. If you dispute this, do you deny that organic molecules oxidize when they are burned? And how do you explain where the CO and CO2 gasses comes from in a fire if not via organic molecules being oxidized? How is that faith?
26 Jan 14
Originally posted by humyI didn't think you would agree, but hey people often overlook their own shortcomings.
No it isn't. Example: Nobody has ever directly seen an organic molecule molecule being oxidized but is not faith that it is inevitable that this happens to organic molecules when wood burns. If it didn't, because of what science has shown about how physical chemistry woks via the evidence, we know there be no forest fires because there be no energy released to ...[text shortened]... CO2 gasses comes from in a fire if not via organic molecules being oxidized? How is that faith?
26 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarI said nothing there about "shortcomings".
I didn't think you would agree, but hey people often overlook their own shortcomings.
Lets go back to the topic: how is believing organic molecules would inevitably oxidize when burned is just faith and not based on the scientific evidence?
27 Jan 14
Originally posted by humyYou will never get a straight answer to that question, he will just sidestep it and go back to how screwed up people are not to believe in the literal translation of the bible.
I said nothing there about "shortcomings".
Lets go back to the topic: how is believing organic molecules would inevitably oxidize when burned is just faith and not based on the scientific evidence?
27 Jan 14
Originally posted by humyOf course you didn't say anything about shortcomings. How can you make a comment about something you are unwilling to see/admit. The only way you can overcome your shortcoming is to first admit it.
I said nothing there about "shortcomings".
Lets go back to the topic: how is believing organic molecules would inevitably oxidize when burned is just faith and not based on the scientific evidence?
27 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonhouseIt has nothing to do with believing the Bible. You are simply too consumed with hate to be able to see what I am actually saying.
You will never get a straight answer to that question, he will just sidestep it and go back to how screwed up people are not to believe in the literal translation of the bible.
27 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarHate is such a bitter word. I don't hate religious people, I pity them and hope they someday will prove civilized.
It has nothing to do with believing the Bible. You are simply too consumed with hate to be able to see what I am actually saying.
I REALLY dislike billions of people deliberately duped. Of course the deliberate part happened a few thousand years ago when they pulled the scam on the populous touting creationism as how we got here, but modern people have the advantage of 300 years of solid scientific development and should know better than to fall for the BS fairy tales of the bible.
Like the Flood. Come on, do you really believe the entire planet was covered with water from a 40 day rain? Thousands of feet of water, tens of thousands of feet of water, it would have to rained 3 or more inches per MINUTE and if it just drained away like the fairy tale says there would be MANY underground aquifiers like the Ogalala in the midwest, which, BTW, we are emptying it out, it is running dry. That took thousands of years to accumulate from the last ice age in Canada where there were many more Great lakes, some a LOT bigger than what we have today but they all drained south and ended up underground in the midwest.
We should find water levels like that but a thousand times over.
No such huge levels of underground water exists.
The WORLD WIDE flood is a fairy tale. Maybe an apocalyptic tale maybe based on some of the flooding we know hit the middle east area a few thousand or more years ago but world wide, Impossible.
There was a time, about 700 MILLION years ago when the Earth was covered mostly, with ice. That is the nearest thing the Earth ever got to a world wide flood.
Originally posted by Eladaryou just proved sonhouse right there in what he just said. You will never give a straight answer to a question. You also just change the subject completely -what "shortcomings" I do not "admit" to which is relevant to what I just said? You didn't state specifically what kind of "shortcoming" and I am not a mind reader so I honestly cannot know what you are talking about here.
Of course you didn't say anything about shortcomings. How can you make a comment about something you are unwilling to see/admit. The only way you can overcome your shortcoming is to first admit it.
27 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonhouseScience has not invented a viewometer to see into the past. So your statement about what is know millions of years ago is pure crap.
Hate is such a bitter word. I don't hate religious people, I pity them and hope they someday will prove civilized.
I REALLY dislike billions of people deliberately duped. Of course the deliberate part happened a few thousand years ago when they pulled the scam on the populous touting creationism as how we got here, but modern people have the advantage of ...[text shortened]... as covered mostly, with ice. That is the nearest thing the Earth ever got to a world wide flood.
27 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsSure, to you, missing most of your brain.
Science has not invented a viewometer to see into the past. So your statement about what is know millions of years ago is pure crap.
People who can actually USE their brains have figured out the truth many decades ago and there is solid agreement as to how old the Earth really is.
You are on the final frontier of fringe, a dying breed, thankfully.