Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Yes you did, you just did not realize it. Abigenesis is almost certainly the way that life began. We do not have all of the answers yet. And it still has nothing to do with this debate.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes you did, you just did not realize it. Abigenesis is almost certainly the way that life began. We do not have all of the answers yet. And it still has nothing to do with this debate.And you keep avoiding answering my question How did life begin?" which suggests to me you don't know the answer so all your posturing is hot air. Oh, by the way, I never mentioned abiogenesis.
Neither of those articles support your claim. The first one only said that it would float with 70,000 animals on it. It said nothing about how it would float if filled with food for those animals, how those animals would be mucked out, breathe, etc.. It only dealt with far too few species that would require not macro evolution after the flood, it would require "megaevolution".You do realize that the Ark has been created and is not inferior at all.
http://www.businessinsider.com/scie...ls-if-built-by-dimensions-in-the-bible-2014-4
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/world/europe/johans-ark-noah-dutch/
Why don't you pick the creationist for us.
I have supplied evidence in the past, I have not supplied any recently. When I run into creationists that do not understand the nature of evidence, as you have shown that you don't, I then require them to learn what scientific evidence is. I even offer to help. I can help you to learn what is and what is not evidence. It is not that hard to learn. Claiming that there is no evidence when evidence has been presented to you many times only makes you look foolish.You are wrong. You have not given any evidence. You do not understand the evidence that is present. You simply have been told what to think and have not considered anything other than that.
Over 99% of all biologists accept the theory of evolution as being correct. That leaves your side with only a handful of nuts and kooks.You do realize that not virtually every academic (christians included) involved in the field of biology embraces Darwinist evolution?
I have supplied evidence in the past, I have not supplied any recently. When I run into creationists that do not understand the nature of evidence, as you have shown that you don't, I then require them to learn what scientific evidence is. I even offer to help. I can help you to learn what is and what is not evidence. It is not that hard to learn. Claiming that there is no evidence when evidence has been presented to you many times only makes you look foolish.
But I have seen that most creationists are very very afraid to even learn what evidence is.
Which is totally irrelevant to the issue and a sad commentary on how accepting one is to just accept any claim that is made using evolutionary explanation without evidence for it.I'm only showing you that to observe evolution one does not have to review the details. If you want to waller in the details fine, details don't nullify evolution.
If you would like to believe that those biologists that are theists as well accept that evolution alone is true and life is just a product of natural causes you mistaken.Over 99% of all biologists accept the theory of evolution as being correct. That leaves your side with only a handful of nuts and kooks.
Neither of those articles support your claim. The first one only said that it would float with 70,000 animals on it. It said nothing about how it would float if filled with food for those animals, how those animals would be mucked out, breathe, etc.. It only dealt with far too few species that would require not macro evolution after the flood, it would require "megaevolution".
And we don't know if the second one even floats. Neither of them have faced even the mildest of seas, much less the extreme seas one would expect in what would be the worst storm in the history of the world.
I am saying that Hovind is not a scientist and does not meet the criteria you used in making your claim. If Hovind is not a scientist he is not then an example of what you claimed.Are you saying it is okay to lie about a science in which one is not qualified in? You know, that includes all most all of the creation science claims. They love to use the appeal to authority fallacy; oh, such and such is a PhD. Right, in what field.
But you are the one that asked for proof, In fact, you were given the opportunity to pick the scientist.http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/world/europe/johans-ark-noah-dutch/
You really do have a problem with burden of proof don't you. I didn't make the claim that creationist scientists lie about literature they cite.
You weren't asked to provide the evidence, you were asked to name a creation scientist, which is to your benefit, and then you would be provide with the information demonstrating it. All you have to do is pick a creationist who publishes in the scientific literature. I know, its really hard to come up with one since almost all of those that actually do have credentials in one area of science don't publish in that area of creation science. What you do have is engineers, and medical doctors making stuff up about ice cores, dating methods, and sedimentology.It is not up to me to provide you or Rick with your evidence for your claim.
I gave you the example of Dr. Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology, who has no problem with an old earth in the scientific literature but does in the creationist literature. Then you move the goal post to biology. Hey, I made the accusation, and you asked for an example. You got one.I am saying that Hovind is not a scientist and does not meet the criteria you used in making your claim. If Hovind is not a scientist he is not then an example of what you claimed.
Ok, fair enough. However, just because it wasn't mentioned doesn't mean they didn't have that information or if they even considered that in their calculations. We may not know and have any evidence to support it was what is recited in the Bible but we have no evidence nor has anyone made any calculations or efforts to show it impossible either.Neither of those articles support your claim. The first one only said that it would float with 70,000 animals on it. It said nothing about how it would float if filled with food for those animals, how those animals would be mucked out, breathe, etc.. It only dealt with far too few species that would require not macro evolution after the flood, it would require "megaevolution".
And we don't know if the second one even floats. Neither of them have faced even the mildest of seas, much less the extreme seas one would expect in what would be the worst storm in the history of the world.
Loudmouth has given you evidence. What exactly are you asking for here? What "illusion of design" are you talking about? You gave a poorly worded and vague claim and then dishonestly demand an answer. Also if you want to demand evidence you need to be able recognize evidence when presented to you. Did Loudmouth give you evidence that supports the theory of evolution?You know what scientific evidence is, you feel you know well enough to instruct others; so please provide the specific evidence that evolution produces an illusion of design in molecular machines.
Yes, I asked for proof which has not been forthcoming. It isn't an opportunity when you are the one that made the claim these creationist scientist lie in their own literature about scientific literature they cite.But you are the one that asked for proof, In fact, you were given the opportunity to pick the scientist.
Are you changing your claim then? We don't really see scientists that are creationists that lie about scientific literature they cite?You weren't asked to provide the evidence, you were asked to name a creation scientist, which is to your benefit, and then you would be provide with the information demonstrating it. All you have to do is pick a creationist who publishes in the scientific literature. I know, its really hard to come up with one since almost all of those that actually do have credentials in one area of science don't publish in that area of creation science. What you do have is engineers, and medical doctors making stuff up about ice cores, dating methods, and sedimentology.
Really? Then provide evidence that supports your claim. I can support my claim if you demand me to. You know that I can since you have seen the evidence that supports me many times.If you would like to believe that those biologists that are theists as well accept that evolution alone is true and life is just a product of natural causes you mistaken.
If you will go back and read my post I specifically asked that it be in the area I have knowledge of as it is not proven they are lying if you can't know if that is true or not.I gave you the example of Dr. Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology, who has no problem with an old earth in the scientific literature but does in the creationist literature. Then you move the goal post to biology. Hey, I made the accusation, and you asked for an example. You got one.
People have pointed out the huge problems with the Ark and most will not run actual calculations since they know the dishonesty of flood believers. Since we can show the immense problems that much more modern ships that are not this large failed the burden of proof is upon you to show that an actual ark could survive the flood. The reason that no one that can has gone to the hard work to refute the Ark nonsense is because they know that they would be accused of making a starwman argument for any design that they proposed themselves.Ok, fair enough. However, just because it wasn't mentioned doesn't mean they didn't have that information or if they even considered that in their calculations. We may not know and have any evidence to support it was what is recited in the Bible but we have no evidence nor has anyone made any calculations or efforts to show it impossible either.
Frances Collins is one. He believes in evolution but he claims that God created the universe and life in it.Really? Then provide evidence that supports your claim. I can support my claim if you demand me to. You know that I can since you have seen the evidence that supports me many times.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?