Noah's Ark v Modern Science

@steveshane

Limited on time.... Never stated you moved on to which you implied. Stated the theory of evolution had moved on when scientific research or observations concludes a definitive use for a vestigal organ, citing another example to link it with evolution. And that all the remaining vestial organs with unknown use have not been linked by science to evolution.

 So I was asking you with science, examples to which you can summit to myself that prove your evolution to be accurate and conclusive and not a work in progress theory. Coincidence is not scientific.

I can list you organs that I have no present knowlege for their use. But at the same time as not being able to rely on scientific accurate facts to indicate their use, that science doesnt provide a fact to link it with evolution. Guess charts dont work about transmutation. Show the scientific evidence.

A vestigal organ with no known use of yester year that was originally claimed by the theory of evolution at the time was later scientifically proven to be incorrect and be useful and not a product of evolution. Vestigal organs give evolution no facts to sell it.

You know exactly what I'm talking about. Answer where your vestigal organs that science proves as evidence that link it with evolution. Present evidence of change occuring today. Present evidence not what you observe to be impossible to be coincidence.

You brought "CO" into conversation. You originally said vestigal organs or CO.

You offer insults yet cant answer a question. You give an observation and description. You say you are talking science and not theory but chit chat none of it.

You give give a description of CO and twist it with asking why? You said CO flies in the face of ID but avoid the question of why it does. You give a description and observation of it but dont say WHY it flies in the face. You ask why God would create the way he did so. A Christian wouldnt have to even answer the question because you end up at the point WHY? in your answer.

If you have the knowlege of why God made an error, than you can build a better universe than the almighty.  And you can inform myself how you would build a human in relation to the environment with your CO weak link theory. Please answer that, unless your motive is just to prove myself wrong, which one could speculate the way you slur myself instaed of exchanging conversation.

Explain the benefit of altering our make up and every thing else in accordance with all the organs response and functions with your CO problem that God fell short on and your blue prints to an O2 make up.

Dont use babel as excuse and turn your response into a circus by suggesting you have a fact that flies in the face of creation an avoid a precise answer that land somewhere in your claim.

that's ok vanzack, work your way back in slowly.

would you ever think in 2011 a thread where someone discusses the possibility of noah's ark actually being true would get beyond 100 posts?

slovak, i have to agree with vanzack.  this is a lost cause.  you're better off finding a 25 year old who still believes in santa claus and breaking the news to him so he can have a better apprreciation for his parents.

Yeah right Slovak, I am sure everybody was building ships that size back then with that much capacity. *sarcasm off*

Ok Slovak its obvious you have a degree in Naval architecture  Its also obvious ignorance plays a large part in being an atheist.

this is one of the most ludicrously insane statements i have ever read or heard...
you should really get help!

reading the first couple of posts, i saw some errors, but at least appreciated your
"attempts" at being "critical" in your "thinking"...

but that statement quoted above is scary as hell in it's depth of ignorance...

you have started with what you believe is a truth, and set out with "determination"
to prove it... THAT IS NOT SCIENCE! that is the opposite of science!

science begins with no assumptions, and draws conclusions based on uncovered
realities... you have done nothing of the sort here...

spreading this kind of ignorance is why mankind is threatening itself with extinction...
if you want to shed "enlightened wisdom" on the rest of the world, the best thing you can do
is take a vow of silence for the rest of your life, or until you develop some sense of what
it means to be "critical in thought"!

each paragraph corresponds to the parts i bolded

i never stated i moved on? do you read the posts or are you too busy typing moronic babble?  i guess you missed post 57.

"coincidence is not science" no fucking shit.  you entire list of 38+ items was all coincidences, not science.

you want a piece of evidence today? MRSA, staph has evolved into MRSA, unless you think MRSA was always around and not discovered until recently.

while technically correct i did say "can any ID (intelligent designer) explain vestigial organs or carbon monoxide (CO) poising?" the intent was not to hear an explanation of 1 or the other, it was to differentiate between 2 different subjects that are not mutually exclusive.  i also repeatedly asked you for an explanation on CO, i even said its obvious you are incapable of rationale thought on vestigial organs and to move on to the CO discussion. so thats your reason for repeatedly dodging the question, bc you thought there was a grammatical error? i guess none of your posts count bc they are riddled with errors.

yes im offering insults bc you are babbling like a madman who wont answer a question.  it is fucking science that the body will more readily absorb CO than O2.  its not theory, its not psuedo science, its FACT.

i didnt completely spell out why CO poisoning flies in the face of ID bc ITS FUCKING OBVIOUS!!!.  if humans didnt have an epiglottis and had to give themselves enemas to absorb fluids instead of drinking them, one would certainly say to an IDer, boy your god really fucked this one up.  its the same thing with CO poisoning.  why wouldnt the "intelligent" thing be for our body to more readily absorb O2 than CO? if god was so "intelligent" certainly he would have made our bodies this way.  not only does hemoglobin absorb CO 240x more readily than O2, CO can actually "kick out" an O2 molecule from its attachment with hemoglobin.  WHAT IS THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN REASON FOR THIS???

i agree somewhat with your post.  if koston had actually answered the simple questions right away instead of babbling on nonsensically, this would have been over 3 pages ago.  i dont think i will change his delusional mind, i just got myself caught up in proving my point about CO poisoning.

 

 

 

 

Why? Cause u were there?

I suppose u can tell me what was happening for sure before the universe was created and what caused the universe......

 

What created the universe has nothing to do with Noah's Ark...

while i agree that epistemologically someone can't claim knowledge without an experiential reference point, i think at some point an intelligent person realizes the difference between myth and reality... that isn't to say all "myths" are pure fiction... but to take such things literally is just nonsense...

if there was such thing as a Noah's Ark, it was being described from a standpoint of people who (a) didn't understand the truths behind all of it, and (b) were recounting an account of a story of a tale told by someone else, who had heard it from someone else...

at some point soon, people are going to have to start taking some pride in their critical thought... because the kind of thinking displayed in this thread is extremely dangerous!

 

This thread is O-V-E-R  Vanzack has spoken.

Please do not question him.  Any of those who believe in a higher power are a moron.  We were all formed by a comet. And the person who posted Penn and Teller on page one (that had one "scientist" to support their "facts").   Congrats, if Penn and Teller say it, then it must be gospel, that's where I get all my facts from whether it's religion, philosophy, science.......

My only comment is regarding the creation of the universe....

I am simply saying, atheists want proof of God.....All what i am saying is that think to the origin of the universe....before space and time began to exist, what was there.......?

See, thats why science rejects religion and God cause they simply cannot test anything that doesnt exist in a framework of time and space..,....

Think of a state where there is no space and time.

Absolutely nothing, no space, no time, nothing.....how does the universe get created? remember, something cant come from nothing.

To me the only logical plausible explanation is the spiritual world.....

U r gonna ask where did God come from.....? Well, the conservation laws associated with physics (something cant come from nothing) apply to this physical universe.......how do we know the laws of the spiritual world?

To me it takes a much much bigger leap of faith to believe the universe existed out of absolute nothing that to believe in God....The fact is, there is something.....

 

Rostos, i see what you're saying... i was not at all commenting on the existence of God... in fact, if you are familiar with the concept of "emergent phenomena," it is almost impossible to argue against the existence of God... however, i don't think it is anything like what we generally describe...

quantum physics has proven action-at-a-distance (nonlocality)... this suggests that living entities (on any order) are connected, and therefore coexist at a higher level of consciousness (whether it be humanity, or the Earth, solar system or universe... or just a coral reef)... on one level we can define individual entities, but at higher levels what do we call it?

if there is a higher level of consciousness that encompasses individuals in a system, then at the highest order of living systems that consciousness would have to be called God...

when you get down to it, it's something that is just too complicated for us to spend so much time discussing... we can't possibly begin to understand it... but one thing is certain, religious fanatics have painted a too simplistic picture of what we call God... it is not some guy living in the clouds who condemn and judges us... it is something that guides, and lives (in a different way than we do)...

so i totally agree with what you are saying there...

@Ice4Blood

In all the banter of discussion, what does your own reason conclude for the existance of the human occupation on the planet?

One could be intricate in the judgement of the Christian faith, with those who use articles or pagan worship and break their own commandments that they hold with high esteem. Crafting images of heaven and wearing pagan symbols that they believe identify and promote their religion...... But

What do you evaluate as relgious fanaticism as a subjective border. As there isnt a standard that defines its core appearence, though the consensus would be that any belief that creates a communtiy by where those involved dont associate with society outside their group. And that anyone group who has a collective belief that includes an agenda to hold themselves higher and be permitted in the name of a God to to engage in war against non-believers or a certain race is extreme and dangerous.

What constitues fear into your mind from actions of Christians in multicultral America or your country of origin, that you view as fanatical promotion or a dangerous practice that can produces a trend of extreme thoughts or actions.

As France have introduced laws that target Isamic practice. A French born citizen who has the appearence of a middle eastern description, to which their parent and (or) grandparents decended and migrated from those parts. Yet by some groups they are not considered French due to appearence, and their country of blood heritage do not identify them as national members as they have been raised in a European culture. Society makes them not belong to one or the other.

But Islam for example is not a race but a global identity and can recruit them and make them feel apart to a society and cause. People such as this can be targets for inclusion into extreme teachings and practices that act out relious assults.

Or is the simple sight of viewing religious groups who segregate themselves from common society extreme in your view who may even lobby for additional laws or removal of laws that conflict with their practice. I speculate you would have tolerence for an individual who is groomed with the belief of a religion but that doesnt force in upon others though will discuss it.

[Quote: Originally Posted by steveshane67]

i agree somewhat with your post.  if koston had actually answered the simple questions right away instead of babbling on nonsensically, this would have been over 3 pages ago.  i dont think i will change his delusional mind, i just got myself caught up in proving my point about CO poisoning.
[/Quote]

 

@steveshane67,

You suggest my state of mind is of delusional, though are unable to present a single fact of accurate scientific evidence that gives the theory of evolution breath.

Do so, and I will honor your efforts with belief.

You were presented with a formal response with scientific fact that proves my point on vestigal organs and counters your vision of it.

You make a CO claim with no education of chemical elements. This is proven when you make a bogus claim that anyone who understands the chemical compounds would bring embarresment on yourself for making such an accusation with serious intentions.

I'm calling you out on your CO theory of disproving creation and you cant state why it does...... because it doesnt.

Your coincidence observation has no place in the conversation. Could you imagine seeing your tactics being utilized within the justice system.

Not once did you put intellegent design in a corner where it wasnt able to defend itself and was subject to a fatal blow.

Vestigal organs and CO were introduced into discussion by yourself. You have used them both to attack the belief of a designer as ultimate weapons against ID's survival. If you had proven any point with your motive to destroy and prove ID false, you would state the scientific evidence on either one, to which you cant.

You allow others to spoon feed your response by failing to answering the simple question on CO. You are so desperate to go to war with ID and cast its downfall that we both know you would present a death blow if you had it..... But you dont hold a winning hand.

You walk away at last stand supportive of a regurgitated comment of this discussion being taken place in 2011 being a shock beyond belief running with a pack.

Well wouldnt in 2011 it be easier to disprove a creator or find a single fact to support evolution. Is it not a disgrace to your character of belief that in 2011 you still support a fantasy.

You walk amongst a group that have quoted Santa having as much merit as Jesus, yet science says that transmutation is as real as an Easter bunny. Is this not a concern for you that science does not endorse your mystic theory. You will never find the science you seek, because your belief is fantasy not a reality.

You show ignorance when you throw out errors from the bible without an exact reference for analyses, yet you qualify yourself as never reading an accurate account of the word of God.

You base what you know on what you dont know which is the concept of fools (and I know you are of a quality grade of intellegence and I mean that). You credit yourself with no knowlege on the scriptures and then defend your cause citing errors, and you label myself as delusional after I compliment yourself on your approach in that department. You deserved that compliment for dismissing an attack on something you acknowlegded as not having studied. That deserved praise brother.

Throwing out watered down evidence that you do not even have full confidence in profiles a desperate stubborn position.

You state that you got caught up proving your CO point over an extensive time. FALSE.

You yourself raised the topic but would not further mention anything on it. When you did you gave a description and observation but could not elaborate on why it supports to the claim you hide behind. Just state surley that there is a better way but dont define it and construct it.

You dont approve of the belief that Christians know to be true that if you could at any point early in our discussion, you would have put ID into a grave and buried it with evidence to support your claim. And not dragged extended conversation across multiple pages.

A genius is not required to understand you hold a losing hand and would want to align your belief as true and do something everyone has failed to do and prove evolution. You are decieved with throwing out deceptive comments to mask a lack of wisdom, standing behind a CO claim that the field of chemistry would disown you for in sugesting the method you pose as in more efficient. Show myself your human blue print to the environment with your hybrib new an improved state of design.

You have done no better than Slovak who has given food provisions and sanitation as reason without in depth research that proves this not to a weak point. Those two wouldnt even make it to a courtroom as evidence if this was put before a jury. At request I can show how misinformed those comments are. Though would Slovak be seeking the truth.

But your horse comment shows the extreme's of why you shouldnt have been upgrading your attack to a CO debate. Do you realize that you are interprating science in a wrong context. Re-figure your DNA blue print to show a module of a body that absorbs more O2 readily and everything in relations to it. If their is a better way, present it. Dont say surley your way seems more logic and efficient. Contruct it. You said it flies in the face of ID like evolutionist that state they found a scientific error but fail to construct it. Comments are not helping prove any claim.

Contruct your claim. You will have trouble because you ignore so much when you present science. Its foolish to look into fact the way you do and interperate it as representing evidence of no designer.

Evolution lives through those who are in denial of science, your views are extreme speculation and guess work that you are trying to graft to fact.

.....I offer you my respect. In any title fight or brawl after all the blows you have to offer the gesture of shaking the hand of your opponent.  Despite when the 12th round may end, its something I will do at present to signify your ability to engage in a sensative topic that a majority cant participate in a civial manner across the globe and can create a cutural wasteland at times. 

Learning something I did, and can understand your thoughts to defending or per say, not conforming to any belief of a designer. But dont take a negative investment out of this as I honestly hope for prosperity for anything you do. Hope you at this point have learned something from my side of the banter. And I'm not leaving myself open here for you to slur with that being delusion. 

 Make the most of the day and hope you knock 'em down with who ever you may be rolling the dice with in your wagers of choice today.

 

 Good health to you ss67........

koston, you are delusional, I didnt mention anything about 2011.

secondly, what is the intelligent part of having hemoglobin absorb CO 240x more readily than O2 and COs ability to "kick out" O2 from hemoglobin.  WHAT PURPOSE DOES THIS SERVE? there is none, if you think god created everything as is, then you god fucked this one up.

and why do you keep harping on evolution, im merely pointing out the inadequacies in ID in regards to vestigial organs and CO poisoning.

its sad that you continually refuse to acknowledge the question thats being repeatedly asked, instead you write these nonsensical posts which have nothing to do with the top.

im done with this thread bc its a waste of time, you will never see the errors of your way.  but before i go, you earlier made a bunch of references to the earth only being 6000 years old bc something happens at a certain rate today, thus if you extrapolate it, the earth is only 6000 years old.

newsflash, that is the most moronic argument ever.  lets count the number of things that completely contradict your claim. 
canyon formation, diamond formation, oil formation, volcanic island formation, like hawaii.  i could go on and on but you would never acknowledge these things exist. 

and you mentioned niagara falls, im from the area and we learn about it all the time as kids, you know how much the falls have receded in the last 10000 years, only a few miles.  you know why they werent there since the formation of the earth, theres these little things called glaciers.  ever heard of the finger lakes? they formed those too.

have a nice life, i hope your ignorance and delusion doesnt get you into any trouble

these are the 4 questions you asked, and for the life of me, i cannot figure out what you are asking in any one of them... would it be possible for you to re-organize your thoughts on these and present them again in clearer terms?  i can see that you are attempting to come across as intellectual, the way you word things, but i think you would come across as more intellectual if you just kept it simple...

feel free to ask again, if you want an answer... i just had no idea how to answer them, because it is all incoherent...

Believing your concept that the current human configuration is succeeded by your "surley" better way is like a cosmologist believing that we only see the visible part of a much larger "multiverse" that randomly spews out universes with different physical parametres. You are out of your leauge suggesting by what ever means, that your theory is superior. Contruct a layout and you will come to a realisation that it is plagued with errors.

You were given a precise answer on vestigal organs..... You didnt like the response that holds truth, and bent a backlash reply that it never answered the direct question......You know it covered and countered your theory against ID and I will cease playing a broken record stating so.

And in your depature you leave with a bad taste from that horse comment that you also said you made your point on, that even you would have woken to the core of its foolishness and ignorant inclusion. triggering a run out with a list of home town claim to fame knowledge. There was a time and a place for those, but you even played the thread jester again by listing things that turn against you. Diamond and oil formation e.c.t, I would have enjoyed walking through your scientific paper kingdom knowlege that you silenced in the background untill last stand.

  Thanks for life well wishes, likewise to yourself.......

@Ice4Blood,

Will set it up at one and done.

What do you consider "dangerous" thinking and practices in your country of residence by religious groups?

that's a pretty broad question with a lot of answers...

but in the context of your thread, i consider it to be very dangerous when religious groups try to support their scriptures with what they claim are scientific arguments (e.g. evolution violates the Law of Entropy and similar arguments)... what is dangerous is that the majority of people are not scientific and not intellectual, and are therefore easily duped into believing that an argument is scientific, when it is not... this becomes persuasive, and breeds further ignorance...

what i see typically, is that religious zealots take a very unscientific approach... essentially, they set out to prove what they believe, instead of setting out to find the truth... a priori thinking is not scientific!  it is, in fact, the antithesis of scientific thinking...

you have a certain set of beliefs, and you are determined to convince yourself and others that they are true... so you look for anything that supports them, and ignore anything that does not... that's really bad science there, my friend...

science starts with a blank slate, and no assumptions, and accepts whatever evidence it finds, and whatever conclusions that evidence supports!

these days, the world is rampant with pseudo-intellectuals who know a little bit about science, and can spew out a few theories, and try to apply them (badly, usually) in piecemeal fashion, in an attempt to support their dogma...

that is dangerous, because science is an attempt to understand how reality works, and the fruits of that inquiry are what ultimately defines our socio-cultural value systems... this is called Natural Philosophy... science isn't just about making laws and understanding chemical reactions for the sake of understanding them... if serves a purpose, and that purpose is to define our philosophy of the world in which we dwell...

bad science legislates bad philosophy, and philosophy is critical to our survival and advancement as a species...