Lynchburg man looking for Noah's Ark

reply to post by tallcool1


Actually the mechanics of biogenesis is quite well understood, it's been proven that the tiny bits of protean which make up all life are very likely to have existed in large amounts in the developing world, these tiny stands of material when formed by chemical processes fold into complex shapes (defined by their nature) and react when a positively charged ion attaches to the negatively charged end causing it to change shape to accomidate the force applied electromagneticly.

A mass of these random shapes reacting to each other for millions of years would, like shakespears million monkeys on typewriters, produce a self replicating machine, computer models have shown the mechanics of this very clearly. Once a machine is self replicating the slow battle of evolution can begin. Complex interactions develop and relatively soon we have cell walls, cytoplasms and mitosis.

It's no longer a mystery how we came to be, it's an amazing history of development -the highly chaotic but graceful clime towards self awereness and a whole new stage of evolution!

---

As for the ark, they keep finding it every few years - not only would wood from over 4000 years ago perish but to prove it was the ark it would need to be large enough to have two of each the animal types on the planet! I don;t think we're missing a boat the size of NY City sticking out the side of the most one of the most traveled mountains in history

Sometimes they say that dino's were all killed by the flood, hehe they probably don't know that the majority of spieces whiped out with the dinos were sea based

It worrys me that someone can get money and a group together to go look for the ark, the economy of the world is falling to bits but it's fine spending this money, we;re looking for the ark...

MAybe this is going to be bluebeam's trick to get us all worshiping their god again and being subservent to their whims.

Originally posted by tallcool1
I do believe that small evolutionary changes do occur within a species to adapt to environmental changes and so forth, but to believe that all life on earth came from the same prokaryotes is an unprovable theory requiring faith in the interpretation of some scientists. Many scientists believe otherwise.

Good thing about science: truth, not belief, prevails.

So call me ignorant or call me names if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Please, no need to play the victim. No one called you any names.

What I said, and everyone can check, is that your statement that "Theory of Evolution and Creationism require the same amount of belief" is an ignorant one.

Obviously you don't agree, but don't act like I'm calling you names.

you even admit that science disproves previously held theories with new evidence.

Of course! To deny or dismiss evidence that doesn't fit previous theories would be completely unscientific, and to be in denial... you know, like some religious people are.

Well, those previous theories had factual evidence as well didn't they?

Yes they did, and they all played an important part in influencing other scientists and research. Once a new theory explains better and/or more surfaces, it will replace the old one.

Newton's theory of gravity is a good example. Newton's description of gravity is accurate enough for certain purposes and calculations, but doesn't work in other situations and didn't make some predictions successfully, hence Einstein's General Relativity.

We also know that General Relativity breaks down in certain situations (in singularities for instance). But none of these theories' shortcomings invalidates the existence of gravity, now does it?

Granted that Darwin's Theory of Evolution doesn't explain everything, but there is a big difference between explaining and believing something.

Creationism explains nothing, it's merely a belief. Darwin's Theory of Evolution not only describes a naturally occurring process with great precision, but also made predictions that were confirmed a century later, when technology allowed.

And if something is found that completely goes against all current scientific "facts", it is conveniently discarded.

First you acknowledge that science, based on new evidence and discoveries, replaces and create theories, but then you accuse scientists of discarding contradictory evidence. They are mutually exclusive.

It's no secret that people have forged results and data, but that's anything but scientific, and has nothing to do with science as a whole.

your irritation at the stupidity of those of us who believe in God and I will respond there.

You continue to misidentify or mischaracterize my 'irritation'. It is not towards your belief in God, but in your lack of understanding of Evolution and Darwin's theory.

Evolution requires no faith, it is an observable phenomenon. Creationism on the other hand, is merely a belief, based on no data or evidence.