Noah's Ark

[tryscotty]

I just looked here and noticed my quotes don't show up right. I use my iPhone app and it does look right on that. Just in case anyone was wondering.
There is evidence that is compelling to support a global flood. Of course science tries to blame it on an ice age. But the purpose of this thread wasn't to bring forth evidence for or against the flood. Just to say if God exists he could accomplish was is written in the Bible. And good morning to ya'll

[don_pepe]

Coincidentally there is a young earth creationist lecture about this very subject on Thursday. Skeptics from the Centre For Inquiry will be there too defending real science.

http://www.creationfoundationministries.org/?page_id=12

[tryscotty]

[quote="don_pepe"]Coincidentally there is a young earth creationist lecture about this very subject on Thursday. Skeptics from the Centre For Inquiry will be there too defending real science.

http://www.creationfoundationministries.org/?page_id=12[/quote]

Real science? Like the foundation of life arriving on earth on the back of crystals? Can't wait.

[wthwyt]

Real science? Like the foundation of life arriving on earth on the back of crystals? Can't wait.

No better and certainly no worst then this all knowing and all seeing, force some believe is out their somewhere (God). Which no one see or hears............. now thats a winner.

[tryscotty]

[quote="WTHWYT"]"tryscotty" wrote:
Real science? Like the foundation of life arriving on earth on the back of crystals? Can't wait.


No better and certainly no worst then this all knowing and all seeing, force some believe is out their somewhere (God). Which no one see or hears............. now thats a winner.[/quote]

There's clear evidence of design but that's a different thread. I just thought it was ironic the words "real science" were used , when top scientist put the mentioned theory about crystals forth. Your right that's not science either. Certainly not real science. There is a thread about creation so maybe look it up and comment if you wish to continue.

[don_pepe]

Crystals? Please elaborate, I'm not familiar with this theory.

[tryscotty]

[quote="don_pepe"]Crystals? Please elaborate, I'm not familiar with this theory.[/quote]

The movie no intelligence allowed interviewed leading scientists and one said that when pushed to answer a start of life question. Hawkins I believe said, "maybe aliens seeded earth" he was serious.

[Corneliousrooster]

Crystals? Please elaborate, I'm not familiar with this theory.

The movie no intelligence allowed interviewed leading scientists and one said that when pushed to answer a start of life question. Hawkins I believe said, "maybe aliens seeded earth" he was serious.

Hey tryscotty - you did notice the word "Maybealiens seeded the earth" as opposed to "aliens seeded the earth" where as it is not "maybe God created life" it is "god created life"

throw some "maybe's" into your phrasing on your beliefs and you might have a LOT less opposition......

[tryscotty]

I don't maybe believe in God or the Bible.

[don_pepe]

You're quoting a movie that says Darwin influenced Hitler. In reality 'On the origin of species' was one of the books the Nazis burned.

The Dawkins quote you're referring to was a trick the movie used. They asked him something along the lines of under what circumstances he might believe intelligent design possible, and he replied aliens. They of course edited the question part out to make him look stupid.

[tryscotty]

Maybe trick editing but when pushed for answers how non living became living it doesn't sound like "real science". Even smart people are allowed to guess, it's just not science.

[don_pepe]

Scientific Method: "A procedure used by scientists to test hypotheses by making predictions about the outcome of an experiment before the experiment is performed. The results provide support or refutation of the hypothesis."

That means that you come up with an idea and test it, if it fails it's rejected. If it passes the test it's information gained. It's not guessing like you assert.

So far abiogenesis has passed the tests. The more widely accepted theory is that RNA formed through natural chemical processes. RNA is interesting because it can store information like DNA but since it's single stranded it can form different shapes and act like an enzyme. Once RNA was formed it would have had to be be covered with phospholipids to protect it, and this would have been a self replicating system ie a primitive cell.

Experiments have been done where conditions of the primitive earth has been replicated in the lab, and RNA was formed.

[tryscotty]

Move to different thread please. Your comments are welcome but your direction is already a recent thread. I would post a link but I can't from my phone. Or keep going with it. It don't have the enthusiasm to start the RNA DNA discussion, again.

[don_pepe]

I was on the subject of Noahs Ark, you were the one who presented the straw man arguments so I was compelled to correct you.

[tryscotty]

Fine