• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Noah's Ark found?

Not one of you can actually answer this question.

And that is where our faiths are.
 
154 said:
Not one of you can actually answer this question.

And that is where our faiths are.
Click to expand...

Its been answered for you on at least three occaisons, youre inability to understand it is where your faith is

i.e. nowhere
:D

and now youre just trolling,
 
154 said:
Quote a few of those actual and specific answers please.



And not one of you can even say "I don't know."
Click to expand...

already been done for you several times 154, your continued denial of the reality that faces you now is just another example that proves you are a
Troll
 
Marduk said:
already been done for you several times 154, your continued denial of the reality that faces you now is just another example that proves you are a
Troll
Click to expand...

Quote a few of those actual and specific answers please for all to see again.
 
154 said:
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
Click to expand...

see you
raise you
A fool think he needs no advice, but a wise man listens to others
you havent been listening have you
:p

I was going to save this for your next post, but as I'm currently psychic you can have it right now
A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards.
what, you didn't know that anyone can play the quote game, whats frustrating you now is that everyone plays it better than you ever could
:p
 
Last edited:
154 said:
Not one of you can actually answer this question.

And that is where our faiths are.
Click to expand...


I think that there are a few problems here.

1. Not one of us can answer the question in terms that you can understand because you have kept yourself ignorant.

2. You are asking for an answer to question that requires a great deal of scientific knowledge to answer. Most of the people who bother to read your posts do not have this knowledge or can't be bothered to wade through the oceans of information on the internet to search out an answer for you.

3. You use the term 'life' according to your own very limited understanding. The world of science moved beyond that a long time ago. This has been explained to you, but it was like water off a duck's back.

4. You demand a specific spot and a specific time at which life began. I would be shocked if such specificity would ever be possible even if life were such a binary phenomenon.

5. Your intent in asking the question is dishonest, for you ask an unanswerable question with the intent of claiming victory for your position when you get no answers. Nonsense. This is merely your latest attempt at 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' with the obligatory knowing smirk.

Quit being a waste of space and read some good science. Until you make some effort to become educated about reality rather than woo, there is no need for a repeat performance.
 
Complexity said:
Quit being a waste of space and read some good science. Until you make some effort to become educated about reality rather than woo, there is no need for a repeat performance.
Click to expand...

Nice sentiment, but hes more likely to understand
As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
Click to expand...
:D
 
Marduk said:
Nice sentiment, but hes more likely to understand

:D
Click to expand...


You're right.

I need more -eths in there so he feels comfortable - KJ and all that.

It's not that I care all that much about whether he remains taken by the body snatchers - it's just that the body is beginning to get a bit ripe.

I think we should stuff it somewhere.

Either that or stick it on a spike as a warning to others.
 
154, the answer has been explained to you more times than you've asked it. At the moment that the nucleotide-containing vesicles I described could eat, grow, self-replicate and pass hereditary information to offpsring, it fit even the most conservative definition of a living organism. The non-living became alive when it could do all of these things. What word or phrase do you not understand about this?
 
154 said:
Marduk, when and where did the non-living become living?
Click to expand...

Lets out it this way. There is no one point where we can point and say, 'it was not alive, and now it is'. We can look at the process and say 'It has begun to replicate, and consume energy. It is technically alive'.

But we cannot say 'Hark! This is where is begins! It is the same answer when looking at speciation. There is no sudden point where one species suddenly becomes another. It is a GRADUAL process.

If you really want to know more, I suggest you take up biology, and study abiogenesis.
 
Radrook said:
Hasty conclusions based on insufficient evidence. Tagging things as evidence based on wishful thinking or preconceived notions. Totally ignoring viable explanations due to unconscious self-serving selective blindness or aversion to being disproved or ostracized by peers. Inconsistency in the application of criteria. These are some things which can mar scientific investigation. You invoke peer review. OK. But peer review sometimes takes decades to uncover collusion and fraud. In fact, peers themselves are sometimes dupe by fraud for long periods of time before they realize they've been hoodwinked.

Scientific Misconduct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct
Click to expand...

Radrook, I'm well aware human beings are prone to error and fraud. The point you seem to be missing is that these mistakes were found and corrected using science. Once more we see the scientific method ultimately excel over ignorance, career pressure, laziness and greed (or whatever the frauds' motives were) every time. What's your point again?

Radrook said:
I'm not in disagreement with the scientific method. I only disagree with the demand that I have 100% certain in current theories. Wouldn't that require me to believe that such ideas are permanent? After all, if indeed such ideas are in full harmony with reality and reality never changes-then the ideas should never change. So requiring me to have 100% certainty in current ideas sinmply because they are the current ideas certainty is to demand that I practice fallacious reasoning.

Statistics of Scientific Fraud
http://www.orc.ru/~yur77/statfr.htm
Click to expand...

Bolded: What "demand" do you speak of? Who placed it on you? Can you quote someone making this demand, or provide a link to what must be an external site in which this uncritical person demanded that "you have 100% certain[ty] in current theories"? Because I assure you I made no such demand, either in writing or in my intentions. What was your point here again?

Radrook said:
As I explained previously and as I explain above.

Climate Change Fraud
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/b...orruption-included-ignoring-facts-and-science
Click to expand...

Yeah, okay, but what does that have to do with this discussion? I totally agree with everything you're saying in this post, and I've never said or thought otherwise, since the time in my adolescence when I began to study how science works. What, again was your point with regard to this specific discussion?


Radrook said:
I think you misunderstood my claim. I am simply saying that mistakes are made, respected theories once accepted as almost irrefutable are ultimately replaced by theories which are more useful and more in line with perceived realities. Dogmatic statements are retracted. And people who once were speaking of such claims as indisputable fact have to retract. That being the case, the logical thing is to withhold judgement and use words such as "likely" or phrases like "it seems as or appears to..."as qualifiers.

Evolution Fraud
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html
Click to expand...

Right, okay. Thanks for keeping those scientists on track. Meanwhile, in this discussion which we are actually having, I gave a bulleted summary in incomplete sentences of the current thinking on abiogenesis. It's not a scientific paper, and doesn't require the careful wording required in such papers. The single line I posted, "Please keep in mind that each of the following assertions are based on numerous studies conducted in a variety of different scientific disciplines", coupled with a basic understanding of science which should have been taught in grade school, is sufficient for the rest of us to understand that this is the current thinking on the matter based on the best evidence we have. Feel free to add that italicised proviso in front of every statement anyone makes, ever, under any circumstances, so that we can all avoid, in the future, your time-wasting sidebars admonishing us to state the bleeding obvious.

Radrook said:
Before we continue I would like for you to stop the name calling. It tends to provoke me into a name-calling contest which I am not willing to waste my time engaging in. As I said-if indeed that is your opinion of me, then please don't waste your time. You are entitled to your impressive trust in the scientific method. My opinion shouldn't be that much of an issue.

Fraud In Science
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/92prom.html
Click to expand...

First, allow me to apologize. I rarely resort to name-calling, but I found "dingbat" to be a mild and somewhat amusing way of saying that I find your statement "Changing of mind weakens trust and credibility whether it be secular or religious" to be utterly without merit. Anyone making that statement is not in full possession of critical thinking skills, and misunderstands the scientific method. With that said, I won't call you a "dingbat" again.

And, since I find arguing with you a waste of time, I won't likely address you again, unless you say something so outrageously absurd as "Changing of mind weakens trust and credibility whether it be secular or religious", which I assure you will elicit an immediate rebuttal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom